DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15 and 17-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 were amended or newly added in the Applicant’s filing on 09/26/2025.
Claims 21-23 were cancelled in the Applicant’s filing on 09/26/2025.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing on 03/03/2025.
3. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/26/2025 has been entered.
4. Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 9/26/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 10,740,846 (formerly application 14/980,707) has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
5. 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
The claim(s) recite(s) a method, a system comprising instructions, when executed, cause the system and/or computer readable medium comprising instructions, when executed, cause a system to perform a method comprising:
receiving, by … one or more communication[s] … , a plurality of data describing an event from a plurality of sources, the plurality of sources including at least one [source] associated with a vehicle involved in the event, each data in the plurality of data having a different format dependent on at least one of the [means] used to obtain the data;
generating, … based on the plurality of the data, a rendering of the event;
determining, … based on feedback information indicating a validation of accuracy of the rendering of the event, additional data is needed in addition to the plurality of data to augment the rendering of the event, the additional data providing a viewpoint … of the event, … disposed in the vehicle during the event;
receiving, … via the one or more communication[s] ..., the additional data …;
converting, …, each data of the plurality of data into a predetermined format;
generating, …, combined data by combining the converted plurality of data; and
generating, …, an updated rendering of the event using the combined data and the additional data, the updated rendering including … depicting the event and an additional event that occurred at least one of prior to the event or subsequent the event.
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to generate a rendering of an accident which qualifies as a commercial or legal interaction, a subcategory of certain methods of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Examiner notes that “processing insurance claims for a covered loss or policy event under an insurance policy” is a court-provided example of a commercial or legal interaction. see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) citing Accenture Global Services v. Guidewire Software, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Additionally, these limitations, as drafted, under its broadest interpretation, covers a series of steps that can be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions) which are mental process, a second enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Examiner notes that “’collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind” is a mental process. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Electric Power Group v. Alstom, SA. (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of a rendering system (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), hardware or software platform (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), a communications network (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), a sensor (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), a mobile device (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15) and an animation (Claim(s) 8 and 15).
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; are not applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine; are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to (i) adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claim(s) 3-5, 7, 10-12, 14 and 17-20 recite claim limitations that further define the abstract idea recited in respective independent Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15. As such, the dependent claims are also grouped an abstract idea utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
No additional computer components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generically recited computer.
As such, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
6. 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 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, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binion (US Patent 8,954,226) in view of Creath (US Patent 9,691,189).
Regarding Claim 1, Binion discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a rendering system (model generation unit) via one or more communication networks, a plurality of data describing an event from a plurality of sources (sensors), the plurality of sources including at least one sensor associated with a vehicle involved in the event, each data in the plurality data having a different format (analog or digital formats) dependent on at least one of the hardware or software platform used to obtain the data. (see col. 5, lines 43-55);
generating, by the rendering system (model generation unit) and based on the plurality of data, a rendering (visual recreation) of the event (see col. 11, lines 12-21);
determining, by the rendering system (model generation unit), additional information (operational data and/or external source data) is needed in addition to the plurality of data to generate an (accurate) rendering of the event. (see col. 11, lines 22-50; col. 22, line 59 – col. 23, line 22);
the additional data providing a viewpoint from a mobile device of the event, the mobile device being disposed in the vehicle during the event. (see col. 3, lines 39 – col. 4, line 2);
receiving, by the rendering system (model generation unit) via the one or more communication networks, the additional data from the mobile device. (see col. 11, lines 22-50; col. 22, line 59 – col. 23, line 22);
converting, by the rendering system (model generation unit), each data in the plurality of data into a predetermined format (digital format). (see col. 5, lines 43-55);
generating, by the rendering system, combined (paired) data by combining (pairing) the converted plurality of data (or by storing all data in one location) (see col. 5, lines 43-55; col. 19, line 62 and col. 20, line 16)
generating, by the rendering system (model generation unit), a rendering of the event, using the combined data and the additional data, the rendering including an animation depicting the event. (see col. 11, line 12 – col. 12, line 46);
and an additional event that occurred at least one of prior to the event (before impact) or subsequent to the event (after impact). (see col. 15, lines 4-39).
Binion does not explicitly teach a method wherein the determination that additional information is needed is based on feedback indicating a validation of accuracy of the rendering of the event, although Binion does disclose a method wherein the rendering system (model generation unit) determines additional information is needed to validate accuracy of the rendering of the event (to confirm accuracy of the animated recreation). (see col. 11, lines 22-50).
Binion does not explicitly teach a method wherein the second generated rendering is an updated rendering.
Creath discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a rendering system (accident reconstruction system) via one or more communication networks, a plurality of data describing an event (accident data) from a plurality of sources, the plurality of sources including at least one sensor associated with a vehicle involved in the event, each data in the plurality data (audio files and video files) having a different format dependent on at least one of the hardware or software platform (audio files are an audio format and video files are a video format) used to obtain the data. (see col. 5, lines 30 – 53; col. 14, lines 52-64; col. 17, lines 41-53);
generating, by the rendering system (accident reconstruction system) and based on the plurality of data (accident data), a rendering of the event (visual reconstruction of the accident). (see fig. 2; abstract; col. 5, line 21 – col. 6, line 44);
determining, by the rendering system (accident reconstruction system) and based on feedback indicating a validation of accuracy of the rendering of the event (verification of diagram or user input to more accurately reflect the scene of the accident), additional data (adjustments) is needed in addition to the plurality of data to generate a rendering of the event. (see col. 3, lines 50-60; col. 4, line 61 – col. 11, line 3);
determining, by the rendering system (accident reconstruction system), additional data (supplemental data or augmentation data) is needed in addition to the plurality of data to generate a rendering of the event (visual perspective created), the additional data providing a viewpoint (perspective) from a mobile device of the event. (see col. 4, lines 40-54; col. 5, lines 39-50; col. 13, line 41 – col. 14, line 3);
receiving, by the rendering system via the one or more communication networks, the additional data (supplemental data or augmentation data) from the mobile device (mobile or handheld device) (see col. 4, lines 40-54; col. 5, lines 39-50; col. 13, line 41 – col. 14, line 3);
generating, by the rendering system (accident reconstruction system), an updated rendering of the event (updated vehicle image) using the combined data and the additional data, the updated rendering of the event including an animation (animated visual perspective) depicting the event (accident). (see abstract; col. 2, lines 4-14; col. 7, lines 17-25; col. 9, lines 12-26),
and an additional event that occurred at least one of prior to the event or subsequent to the event (animated movement of a vehicle symbol from a starting position to an ending position is a sequence of events). (see col. 7, lines 34-47; col. 8, lines 21-29).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Binion by incorporating the usage of feedback indicating validation of accuracy of the rendering, as disclosed by Creath, thereby ensuring accuracy of the rendering of the event.
Regarding Claim 3, Binion discloses a method wherein the at least one sensor includes one or more of a speed sensor, a fuel sensor, a torque sensor, a camera, a brake sensor, a weather sensor, and a tire pressure sensor. (see col. 2, lines 16-32).
Regarding Claim 4, Binion discloses a method wherein the plurality of data describing the event includes one or more of video data (digital video), audio data, text data, location data, and photographic data (still images). (see col. 3, line 39-col. 4, line 14).
Regarding Claim 5, Binion discloses a method wherein the additional data includes one or more of video data and audio data collected by the mobile device (an external sensor, a smartphone being an external sensor). (see col. 3, line 53 – col. 4, line 2; col. 11, line 63 – col. 12, line 18).
Regarding Claim 7, Binion discloses a method wherein the event is a vehicular accident. (see col. 1, lines 7-11).
Regarding Claims 8, 10-12, 14-16 and 17-20, such claims recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims. Such claim limitations are therefore rejected using the same art and rationale as previously utilized.
7. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered. Some arguments have been rendered moot based upon new references utilized in the current §103 rejection. Some argument(s) were persuasive resulting in a withdrawal of previously asserted claim interpretations. Some argument(s) were not persuasive and the previously asserted §101 rejection is maintained in the current rejection. Such arguments are addressed below.
§101 Rejection
Step 2A Prong One
Applicant argues that the claimed invention does not recite a mental process and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong One of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 8-9.
Specifically, Applicant argues:
Amended independent claim 1 recites a method for providing feedback and validation of a rendering of an event corresponding to a vehicle, and determining additional data is needed to augment the rendering of the event to improve event rendering accuracy. The claimed elements of amended independent claim 1 recite a computing environment comprising a plurality of sources including at least one sensor associated with the vehicle, a mobile device disposed in the vehicle during the event, and a rendering system that communicate with each other to receive data, receive additional data, augment the rendering of the event, and generate an updated rendering of the event. The claimed elements recited in amended independent claim 1 cannot be practically performed in the mind. For instance, the human mind is not equipped to generate a rendering of the event, receive feedback information indicating a validation of accuracy of the rendering of the event, augment the rendering of the event based on additional data (e.g., mobile device viewpoint), and generate an updated rendering of the event based on combined data and the additional data. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits amended independent claim 1 is not directed to a mental process under Step 2A, Prong One. See Arguments, pp. 8-9 – emphasis original.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A mental process includes processes that can be performed in the human mind (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). Mental processes include processes that would require “the use of a physical aid, such as pen and paper.” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). And processes that utilize a computer. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Claims that recite limitations “that cannot practically be performed in the human mind” are not mental processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). For example, a limitation that cannot be practically performed in the human mind is “detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets” and “rendering a halftone image of a digital image by comparing, pixel by pixel, the digital image against a blue noise mask, where the method required the manipulation of computer data structures (e.g., the pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array known as a mask) and the output of a modified computer data structure.” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The examples provided require a computer. A computer is inherent to the underlying process (e.g., there is no network traffic, data packets or pixels without a computer). This is not the case with the claimed invention.
A human being is capable of generating a rendering of the event (e.g., drawing a diagram of an accident using pen and paper), receive feedback information indicating a validation of accuracy of the rendering of the event (e.g., an accident victim states that the diagram is incorrect), augment the rendering of the event based on additional data (e.g., obtain additional information about the accident), and generate an updated rendering of the event based on combined data and the additional data (e.g., redraw and correct the drawing) .
As such, the claims do recite processes that can practically be performed in the human mind.
Examiner notes that the claims were also rejected as a commercial or legal interaction. No argument was asserted against the claims being categorized under this second enumerated grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong Two of the §101 Guidelines. see Arguments, pp. 9-10.
Specifically, Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits the claimed elements of amended independent claim 1, as a whole, recites an integration into a practical application. In particular, amended independent claim 1, as a whole, recites a method of obtaining specific data or information (e.g., plurality of sources including at least one sensor associated with the vehicle, mobile device disposed in the vehicle during the event) to generate an accurate rendering of an event associated with a vehicle. The method recites receiving feedback information indicating a validation of accuracy of the rendering of the event, and augmenting the rendering of event based on additional data. The additional data provides a viewpoint from a mobile device disposed in the vehicle during the event. The claimed elements of amended independent claim 1 recite specific steps to achieve a specific outcome of a method that improves accuracy of a rendering of an event corresponding to a vehicle based on feedback information indicating accuracy validation, and augmenting the rendering of the event based on additional data provided by the mobile device disposed in the vehicle during the event. The method further generates an updated rendering of the event based on the additional data and combined data converted into a predetermined format to improve event rendering accuracy. See Arguments, p. 9 – emphasis added.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, the U.S. Court of Appeals stated:
As an initial matter, it is true that the claims here are similar to the claims in the cases discussed above in the sense that the claims involve both a computer and the Internet. But these claims stand apart because they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) – emphasis added.
In the instant case, the problem that the claimed invention is designed to overcome, improved event rendering accuracy, is not a problem specifically arising from the realm of computers. This problem is a standard business problem that exists outside the realm of computers and existed before the age of computers.
Additionally, MPEP §2106.05(a) recites:
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. – emphasis added.
However, the specification does not provide any evidence that the claimed invention results in an improvement to the functioning of a computer, an improvement to conventional technology or technological processes, or is addressing a technology-based problem.
Additionally, the specification does not provide any evidence that there is even a technical (i.e., technology-based) problem to be solved. For example, the specification does not provide any evidence that existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions but for the claimed technical solution.
Additionally, MPEP §2106.05(f)(1) recites:
Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743 – emphasis added.
Even assuming there was a technical problem, the claims, as written, fail to recite the details of how a technical solution to the technical problem was accomplished.
For example, if there was a technical problem (e.g., existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions) then the claims should recite the details of the technical solution (e.g., how existing technology was improved to overcome this inability). However, the claims, as written, provide no such details and merely recite that the claimed functions (i.e., the outcome) are being performed.
Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is analogous, the court in Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA (Fed. Cir. 2016) stated:
The claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish. There, we relied on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas” (in Alice, as in so many other § 101 cases, the abstract ideas being the creation and manipulation of legal obligations such as contracts involved in fundamental economic practices). Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. That distinction, the Supreme Court recognized, has common-sense force even if it may present line-drawing challenges because of the programmable nature of ordinary existing computers. In Enfish, we applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Bascom, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11687, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. see Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – emphasis added.
The claimed invention is not an improvement to computer technology or computer functionality. Rather, the claimed invention is applying a computer’s existing capabilities to implement a particular abstract idea. As in Electric Power Group, the focus of the claimed invention is not on an improvement in computers as tools but on improving an abstract idea (i.e., visual reconstruction of events using data) that use computers as tools.
MPEP §2106.04(d) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); [and]
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Examiner asserts that the additional elements amount to merely (1) including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or alternatively, (2) merely links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B
Applicant argues that the additional elements amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea and, as such, satisfies Step 2B of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 10-11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
8. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M. BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, RYAN D. DONLON can be reached at (571)270-3602. 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.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 December 19, 2025
Prosecution Insights