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 .
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 1–12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites:
"...wherein the user interface includes an option for generating a gift card to dispense with the greeting card..."
The phrase "to dispense with the greeting card" renders the scope of the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether: the gift card is generated instead of the greeting card, the gift card is generated together with the greeting card, the gift card is generated for dispensing alongside the greeting card, or the gift card is printed on the greeting card.
The Specification does not resolve this ambiguity, particularly because later claims alternatively recite printing a gift card on the greeting card, dispensing a physical gift card, and electronically sending a digital gift card. Consequently, the metes and bounds of claim 1 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 1 recites: "...wherein the gift card is a digital gift card printed on the greeting card..."
The phrase "digital gift card printed on the greeting card" is internally inconsistent.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a digital gift card to be electronically stored or electronically transmitted, whereas a gift card printed on the greeting card constitutes a physical printed medium.
Accordingly, it is unclear whether Applicant intends: a printed redemption code, a printed barcode, a QR code, a physical gift card, or an electronically delivered digital gift card.
Therefore, the claim fails to particularly point out the invention.
Claim 1 additionally recites: "...configured to provide an envelope in tandem with the greeting card..."
The phrase "in tandem" is a term of degree lacking an objective boundary.
It is unclear whether this requires: simultaneous dispensing, sequential dispensing,
dispensing during the same transaction, dispensing through the same slot, or merely dispensing responsive to the same purchase. Absent objective boundaries, the claim scope is uncertain.
Claims 7–10 repeatedly recite generating or dispensing a gift card
"...to dispense with the greeting card..."
For the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, the phrase "dispense with" is ambiguous and renders the scope of claims 7–10 indefinite.
Claim 8 recites: "...send the digital gift card electronically to an electronic destination input by a user." The phrase "electronic destination" lacks antecedent basis and fails to define the destination with reasonable certainty. It is unclear whether the destination is: an email address, a telephone number, a mobile wallet, a user account, a messaging application, a cloud account, or another destination.
Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably determined.
Claim 10 recites: "...configured to dispense the physical gift card in tandem with the greeting card and the envelope."
Again, the term "in tandem" lacks objective boundaries regarding timing and dispensing relationship. Therefore, claim 10 is indefinite.
Claim 14 recites "...wherein printer is configured...". The limitation lacks proper antecedent basis because no "printer" has previously been introduced.
Claim 1 recites a first printer, while claim 3 recites a second printer.
Accordingly, it is unclear whether claim 14 refers to: the first printer, the second printer,
both printers, or another printer.
Therefore, claim 14 is indefinite.
Claim 15 similarly recites: "...wherein printer is configured..."
For the reasons discussed above regarding claim 14, the claim lacks proper antecedent basis and is indefinite.
Claim 16 recites "...an option for generating a gift card to dispense on the greeting card."
The phrase "dispense on the greeting card" is unclear.
It is uncertain whether the gift card is: dispensed onto the greeting card, printed on the greeting card, attached to the greeting card, associated with the greeting card, or dispensed together with the greeting card.
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
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.
Claims 1–12 and 14–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0205138 A1 (“Friedman”), in view of Curtis, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0226567 A1 (“Curtis”).
With respect to claim 1, Friedman discloses: a greeting card kiosk (¶¶ 12–16) comprising;
a computing device (¶¶ 38–47, 267–277; Figs. 2, 3, 19–22 discloses computers and servers controlling the selection, personalization, printing, matching, and fulfillment of greeting cards and gift cards, including computer-controlled printers, scanners, data stores, and card-handling equipment).
a display screen coupled to the computing device (¶¶ 14, 48–58, 113–132; Figs. 6A–6K discloses presenting greeting-card templates, images, personalization fields, product selections, and WYSIWYG card previews through a graphical display controlled by the computer system);
a user interface controlled by the computing device for display on the display screen, wherein the user interface includes buttons associated with greeting-card options;
in that Friedman (¶¶ 14–16, 48–58, 113–132; Figs. 6A–6K discloses graphical web pages and interactive controls through which the user browses card categories, selects a greeting card, views card panels, adds text or images, changes fonts and formatting, accepts the personalized design, and proceeds with purchase and fulfillment);
a first printer coupled to the computing device, the first printer configured to print a greeting card based on user selections received through the user interface (¶¶ 14–16, 122–149, 267–277 teaches printing a selected and personalized greeting card under computer control after receiving the user’s card-template and personalization selections);
an envelope dispenser coupled to the computing device and configured to provide an envelope in tandem with the greeting card in response to a command from the computing device (¶¶ 267–277; Figs. 19–22 teaches an automated fulfillment machine having a greeting-card transport mechanism, gift-card attachment mechanism, greeting-card folder, envelope inserter, envelope-address printer, and computer controls that cause the completed greeting-card product to be inserted into an envelope);
wherein the user interface includes an option for generating a gift card to dispense with the greeting card (¶¶ 16, 223–245, 267–277 teaches that the user may purchase and personalize a greeting card and assign the greeting card to have a gift card inserted therein, after which the automated system generates, matches, and combines the gift card with the greeting card).
Friedman’s abstract and summary expressly state that the system enables a person to purchase a gift card through a retail kiosk, select a greeting card, personalize it, and provide the gift card embedded in the greeting card. Friedman also teaches printing the gift card, matching its reference data to the greeting card, and securing the gift card to or within a panel of the greeting card.
However, Friedman does not expressly disclose wherein the gift card is a digital gift card printed on the greeting card. More particularly, Friedman ordinarily prints or generates a separate physical gift-card substrate and then attaches or inserts that physical gift card into the greeting card. Friedman does not expressly state that a QR code, barcode, redemption code, or eCode representing electronically maintained gift-card value is printed directly on the physical greeting-card substrate.
However, Curtis teaches a kiosk system providing both printed and electronic forms of gift cards. Curtis discloses a kiosk processor interface through which a user selects a vendor and gift-card amount, a gift-card management server, a card reader and payment module, a printer, and a gift-card dispenser. The server instructs the printer to print and dispense the selected gift card after payment (abstract, claims 14-16; Figs. 1–4).
Curtis further teaches that the gift-card benefit may be provided as an electronic code or “eCode” rather than solely as a physical gift card; that the eCode may be scrambled, encrypted, or encoded for security; that the user may select between an eCode option and a print option; and that the eCode may be electronically transmitted to the purchaser or a remote recipient (Curtis ¶¶ 95–101, 109–116; Figs. 12, 15, and 16). Curtis’s family disclosure expressly describes selecting an eCode option, transmitting the eCode to a remote user, and using the eCode in connection with a subsequently printed customized gift card.
Curtis also teaches that its kiosk prints gift cards onto customizable card stock with a personalized message, including user-selected text, font, design, color, size, logo, value, and other information (Curtis ¶¶ 40–47, 52–59). Curtis’s abstract identifies physical and digital gift-card forms and states that the selected gift cards may be printed onto customizable cards carrying personalized messages.
Thus, Curtis teaches:
a digital gift card embodied by an eCode;
printing gift-card information on customizable card stock;
printing personalized messages and gift-card information together;
user selection between an electronic-code output and a printed output; and
transmitting the eCode to another user or kiosk.
Curtis does not expressly state, in a single sentence, that its eCode is printed directly on a separate paper greeting card. Nevertheless, the combined teachings of Friedman and Curtis render the limitation obvious. Friedman supplies the physical personalized greeting card and its printer, while Curtis supplies the electronic gift-card eCode and teaches printing gift-card information onto customized personalized card stock.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Friedman’s retail greeting-card kiosk using Curtis’s kiosk processor interface, touchscreen input, payment module, gift-card management server, printer, dispenser, and electronic gift-card functionality.
Friedman and Curtis are analogous references directed to the same field of endeavor: computerized retail systems for selecting, personalizing, purchasing, printing, and dispensing gift cards or greeting-card/gift-card products. Friedman expressly identifies a retail kiosk as one channel through which the combined greeting-card and gift-card transaction may be performed, while Curtis provides a detailed implementation of a self-service gift-card kiosk. The modification would have predictably enabled a purchaser to: select and personalize Friedman’s greeting card; select a gift-card merchant and monetary value; pay through Curtis’s kiosk payment module; select either a physical gift card or an eCode; print the selected output; and
receive the greeting card, gift card, and envelope through a single kiosk transaction.
It further would have been obvious to print Curtis’s eCode on Friedman’s personalized greeting card. Friedman already prints user-selected data, personalized text, graphics, reference information, and other content on the greeting card. Curtis teaches that the gift-card benefit may be represented by an eCode and that gift-card information and personalized messages may be printed on customizable card stock. Printing Curtis’s eCode as part of Friedman’s greeting-card print data would have required only the predictable use of Friedman’s existing printer to print an additional alphanumeric or machine-readable data element. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because printing the eCode directly on the greeting card would:
eliminate the need for a separate plastic or cardstock gift-card substrate; reduce card stock, attachment, matching, and assembly costs; prevent the gift-card credential from becoming separated from the greeting card; allow the gift and greeting to be produced in a single printing operation; facilitate scanning or entry of the redemption credential by the recipient; and
permit the recipient to access electronically maintained gift-card value without carrying a separate physical card.
The modification would have amounted to applying Curtis’s known eCode-based digital gift-card technique to Friedman’s known personalized greeting-card printing system, producing no more than the predictable result of a greeting card bearing a printed digital gift-card credential. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–18 (2007).
Accordingly, claim 1 is unpatentable over Friedman in view of Curtis.
With respect to claim 2, Friedman discloses: a payment processor module coupled to the computing device and configured to process an electronic payment from a user interacting with the user interface (¶¶ 38–47, 134–149; Figs. 2–5 discloses receiving purchaser information, credit-card information, authorization information, and transaction information and communicating with a credit-processing server to complete the purchase of the personalized greeting card and gift card).
To the extent Friedman does not expressly identify a payment processor physically incorporated into the retail kiosk, Curtis expressly teaches a kiosk card reader, payment module, and payment server. The user pays the selected amount using a credit or debit card, the card reader communicates with the payment server, and the gift-card management server instructs the printer to print and dispense the gift card after payment authorization (¶¶ 40–47, 52–59; Figs. 1–2).
It would have been obvious to incorporate Curtis’s payment processor into Friedman’s retail-kiosk embodiment to allow the purchaser to complete payment at the same unattended terminal used to select and personalize the greeting card and gift card. Accordingly, claim 2 is unpatentable over Friedman in view of Curtis.
With respect to claim 3, Friedman discloses: a second printer coupled to the computing device (¶¶ 38–47, 267–277; Figs. 2, 3, and 19–22 teaches multiple computer-controlled printers, including personalized greeting-card printers, gift-card printers, and envelope-address printers).
Friedman does not expressly disclose: wherein the second printer is configured to print a receipt in response to the electronic payment being processed.
Curtis teaches payment authorization and transaction confirmation through its card reader, payment module, payment server, and kiosk processor interface (Curtis ¶¶ 40–47, 52–59). Curtis, however, does not clearly and expressly identify a separate paper receipt printer.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to configure one of Friedman’s multiple kiosk-connected printers to print a transaction receipt after Curtis’s payment server confirms payment. Providing a paper receipt upon completion of a self-service retail payment was a conventional and predictable use of a printer in a point-of-sale kiosk. Such a receipt would provide the purchaser with documentation of the amount paid, selected vendor, gift-card value, transaction identifier, and fulfillment status.
The proposed modification does not change the operating principle of either reference and merely uses a known printer to produce conventional transaction information generated by Curtis’s payment-processing system. Accordingly, claim 3 is unpatentable over Friedman in view of Curtis.
With respect to claim 4, Friedman discloses: wherein the display screen is configured to accept tactile input from a user (¶¶ 48–58, 113–132 teaches an interactive graphical interface through which the user selects, edits, and accepts greeting-card and gift-card options).
Friedman does not expressly require the display screen itself to be touch-sensitive.
Curtis expressly teaches that the kiosk processor interface may be a touch user interface based on the sense of touch and that the user may touch the interface to navigate the kiosk and select gift-card options (¶¶ 40–43, 109–111; Figs. 1, 3, 4, and 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to implement Friedman’s retail-kiosk interface using Curtis’s touchscreen because touchscreen interfaces were known to simplify user interaction with unattended retail kiosks and would permit direct selection of Friedman’s displayed greeting-card templates, personalization tools, gift-card options, and payment controls.
Accordingly, claim 4 is unpatentable over Friedman in view of Curtis.
With respect to claim 5, Friedman discloses: a shell internally housing the computing device, the first printer, and the envelope dispenser (¶¶ 267–277; Figs. 19–22 teaches an automated machine containing computers, printers, scanners, greeting-card handling equipment, a gift-card attachment device, a card folder, and an envelope inserter).
wherein the display screen is positioned on a front side of the shell, to the extent Friedman identifies operation through a retail kiosk but does not expressly illustrate the precise physical placement of the display on a kiosk shell.
Curtis teaches a self-contained retail kiosk containing the kiosk processor interface, gift-card management components, printer, card stacker, card reader, and gift-card dispenser. Curtis depicts the customer interface as accessible from the front of the kiosk housing (¶¶ 40–59; Figs. 1–4).
It would have been obvious to house Friedman’s greeting-card printer, computer, envelope components, and user interface within Curtis’s retail-kiosk enclosure, with the display positioned on the customer-facing front, to protect the internal machinery, provide an accessible user interface, and permit unattended operation.
Accordingly, claim 5 is unpatentable over Friedman in view of Curtis.
With respect to claim 6, Friedman discloses the system of claim 5 and further discloses:
wherein the shell includes a slot positioned to dispense the greeting card and the envelope (¶¶ 267–277 teaches automated printing, folding, envelope insertion, and fulfillment of the personalized greeting card and gift card).
Friedman does not expressly identify the final customer-accessible opening as a dispensing “slot.”
Curtis teaches a gift-card dispenser through which a printed gift card is provided to the kiosk user after payment (¶¶ 40–47, 52–59; Figs. 1–2).
It would have been obvious to provide Friedman’s completed greeting card and envelope through a dispensing slot analogous to Curtis’s gift-card dispenser. A slot is a conventional and predictable outlet for dispensing planar printed articles from an enclosed kiosk and would allow the user to retrieve Friedman’s completed greeting-card package.
Accordingly, claim 6 is unpatentable over Friedman in view of Curtis.
With respect to claim 7, Friedman discloses the system of claim 1 and further discloses:
wherein the user interface includes an option for generating a digital gift card to dispense with the greeting card (¶¶ 16, 223–245 teaches a user-interface option for selecting and generating a gift card associated with a personalized greeting card).
Friedman does not expressly characterize the selected gift card as a digital gift card or eCode.
Curtis teaches a kiosk-interface option through which a user selects an electronic-code or eCode gift-card output rather than a physical printed gift card. Curtis discloses choosing an eCode option from a menu, generating or receiving the eCode, and electronically transmitting the eCode to the user or a remote recipient (¶¶ 95–101, 109–116; Figs. 12, 15, and 16).
It would have been obvious to include Curtis’s eCode option among Friedman’s greeting-card/gift-card fulfillment selections to provide the purchaser with a known alternative to a separate physical gift card.
Accordingly, claim 7 is unpatentable over Friedman in view of Curtis.
With respect to claim 8, Friedman discloses: wherein the user interface includes computer-readable program code configured to send the digital gift card electronically to an electronic destination input by a user, to the extent Friedman discloses collecting purchaser and recipient information, including electronic-contact information, communicating transaction data through a network, and using an email server in the fulfillment system (¶¶ 15, 38–47, 134–149, 223–245; Figs. 2–3).
Friedman does not expressly disclose electronically transmitting a digital gift-card eCode to a user-entered destination.
Curtis expressly teaches providing means for transmitting an eCode, transmitting the eCode to the user, and transmitting the eCode to another user located at a remote location. Curtis also teaches that the eCode or another payment vehicle may be delivered through email, mobile messaging, or an electronic transfer (¶¶ 95–101, 109–116; Figs. 12, 15, and 16).
It would have been obvious to configure Friedman’s networked kiosk software to send Curtis’s eCode to an email address, telephone number, mobile device, or other electronic destination entered by the purchaser because Curtis teaches electronic transmission as an intended delivery mode for the digital gift card.
Accordingly, claim 8 is unpatentable over Friedman in view of Curtis.
With respect to claim 9, Friedman discloses: wherein the user interface includes an option for generating or loading a physical gift card for dispensing with the greeting card
(¶¶ 16, 223–245, 267–277 permits the user to select a gift card, specify its value and associated greeting card, generate or obtain the gift card, match it to the personalized greeting card, and attach or insert the physical gift card within the greeting card).
Friedman further teaches printing a physical gift card, scanning and matching the greeting-card and gift-card reference data, and securing the physical gift card to or within a panel of the greeting card.
Curtis additionally teaches user selection, printing, and dispensing of a physical customized gift card from blank-card stock (¶¶ 40–59; Figs. 1–4).
Accordingly, claim 9 is unpatentable over Friedman in view of Curtis.
With respect to claim 10, Friedman discloses wherein the computing device includes computer-readable program code configured to dispense the physical gift card in tandem with the greeting card and the envelope (¶¶ 267–277; Figs. 19–22 teaches computer-controlled operations for printing the personalized greeting card, generating the physical gift card, matching the gift card to the greeting card, attaching or inserting the gift card into a panel of the greeting card, folding the greeting card, and inserting the combined product into an envelope).
Curtis additionally teaches computer-controlled printing and dispensing of the physical gift card following payment authorization (¶¶ 40–59).
It would have been obvious to coordinate Curtis’s dispensing command with Friedman’s existing greeting-card and envelope fulfillment sequence so that the physical gift card, greeting card, and envelope are provided together as the completed kiosk output.
Accordingly, claim 10 is unpatentable over Friedman in view of Curtis.
With respect to claim 11, Friedman discloses wherein the gift card is a physical gift card (¶¶ 16, 223–245, 267–277 expressly teaches printing or otherwise generating a separate gift-card substrate, matching the physical gift card with the personalized greeting card, and attaching or inserting the gift card within the greeting card).
Curtis likewise teaches printing a physical gift card on blank customizable card stock and dispensing it through the kiosk ( ¶¶ 40–59).
Accordingly, claim 11 is unpatentable over Friedman in view of Curtis.
With respect to claim 12, Friedman discloses the claimed system except that Friedman does not expressly disclose: wherein the gift card is a digital gift card.
Curtis teaches that gift cards may be provided in digital form as an electronic code or eCode, including an eCode transmitted to the user or another remote recipient (¶¶ 95–101, 109–116; Figs. 12, 15, and 16).
Curtis further describes selecting between an eCode option and a print option, transmitting the eCode, and using the eCode to obtain or generate a gift card (¶¶ 109–116).
It would have been obvious to implement Friedman’s selectable gift card using Curtis’s digital eCode format to provide immediate electronic delivery, eliminate a separate physical-card component, and permit remote redemption or subsequent printing.
Accordingly, claim 12 is unpatentable over Friedman in view of Curtis.
With respect to claim 14, Friedman discloses: wherein the printer is configured to print out a digital gift card (¶¶ 267–277 teaches computer-controlled printing of gift-card data and a separate physical gift card).
Friedman does not expressly disclose printing a digital gift-card credential such as an eCode, QR code, barcode, or redemption code.
Curtis teaches that a gift card may be embodied as an eCode and separately teaches printing customizable gift cards containing gift-card value, identifying information, personalized messages, design information, and other transaction data (¶¶ 40–59, 95–101, 109–116).
It would have been obvious to configure Friedman’s printer to print Curtis’s eCode or redemption identifier. An eCode is alphanumeric, graphical, barcode, QR-code, or other machine-readable or human-readable data and is therefore susceptible to printing using Friedman’s existing computer-controlled printer. Printing the credential would provide a tangible record of the electronically maintained gift-card value.
Accordingly, claim 14 is unpatentable over Friedman in view of Curtis.
With respect to claim 15, Friedman discloses wherein the printer is configured to print out a digital gift card on the greeting card (¶¶ 14–16, 122–149, 223–245, 267–277 teaches printing a personalized greeting card and associating the printed greeting card with a gift card).
Friedman does not expressly disclose printing the digital gift-card credential directly on the greeting-card substrate.
Curtis teaches:
a digital gift card represented by an eCode;
printing gift-card information on customizable card stock;
adding a personalized message to the printed card;
selecting between an eCode and printed output; and
transmitting or subsequently printing an eCode-based gift card (¶¶ 40–59, 95–101, 109–116).
Under the interpretation supplied by the Specification, the claimed digital gift card is the QR code, barcode, redemption code, or equivalent credential representing electronically maintained gift-card value. Curtis’s eCode satisfies the digital gift-card credential aspect, and Friedman supplies the physical greeting-card substrate and greeting-card printer.
It would have been obvious to include Curtis’s eCode in the print data sent to Friedman’s greeting-card printer. Friedman’s printer already prints user-defined text, graphics, photographs, personalization data, and card-reference data. Printing an additional barcode, QR code, or redemption code would have been a routine application of that printer to another known category of printable information.
The modification would predictably create a physical greeting card carrying a printed credential through which the recipient accesses the digital gift-card value, while eliminating the separate physical gift-card substrate and associated matching and attachment steps.
Accordingly, claim 15 is unpatentable over Friedman in view of Curtis.
With respect to claim 16, Friedman discloses wherein the user interface includes an option for generating a gift card to dispense on the greeting card (¶¶ 16, 223–245 teaches an interface through which the user selects and personalizes a greeting card, selects a gift card, assigns the gift card to the greeting card, and initiates combined fulfillment).
Friedman does not expressly disclose an interface option specifying that a digital gift-card code is to be printed directly on the greeting card.
Curtis teaches selectable eCode and print options through its kiosk processor interface. A user may select an eCode output, a printed-card output, a vendor, a monetary amount, and personalization information (¶¶ 40–59, 95–101, 109–116; Figs. 3, 4, 12, 15, and 16).
It would have been obvious to present a combined “print eCode on greeting card” option through Friedman’s interface. Friedman already permits the user to select the greeting-card format and gift-card association, while Curtis permits the user to select electronic-code and printed outputs. Combining those interface choices would merely allow selection of a predictable output arrangement supported by the combined printing and eCode capabilities of the references.
Accordingly, claim 16 is unpatentable over Friedman in view of Curtis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROKIB MASUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5390. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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.
/ROKIB MASUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights