DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 5/30/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/30/2025.
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 .
Priority
Applicant claims priority to provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 63/324,955, filed 3/29/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been submitted.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s claims, filed 5/30/2023, have been entered. Claims 18-20 have been withdrawn in the reply filed on 5/30/2025 as being drawn to a nonelected Invention. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application and claims 1-17 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should recite “where provider users can register with the platform individually as providers associated with a company and present their aesthetic services to client users; and” in lines 5-6. Claims 2-17 inherit the objection of claim 1.
Claims 2-17 recite “The ecommerce platform of Claim…” and should recite “The method of Claim…” For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret claims 2-17 as “The method of Claim…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 1 recites a “…computer implemented method of an online e-commerce platform comprising: company users, provider users and client users…” in lines 1-2. Paragraph [0013] of the Specification recites these users are “persons.”
For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret claim 1 as:
1. A computer implemented method comprising:
providing an online e-commerce platform for company users, provider users, and client users;
where company users can register their companies with the platform presenting their aesthetic services to client users;
where provider users can register with the platform individually as providers associated with a company and present their aesthetic services to client users; and
where client users seeking specific aesthetic services can search the platform for providers and companies providing such services within a specified geographical location with the use of global positioning system (GPS).
For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret claims 2-9 and 17 as: “…further comprising providing…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-17, are directed to a process (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 1 (as interpreted), taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
A method comprising:
providing a platform for company users, provider users, and client users;
where company users can register their companies with the platform presenting their aesthetic services to client users;
where provider users can register with the platform individually as providers associated with a company and present their aesthetic services to client users; and
where client users seeking specific aesthetic services can search the platform for providers and companies providing such services within a specified geographical location.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claim 1 are certain methods of organizing human activity because enabling users to register and search for providers and companies providing services is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In this case, representative claim 1 (as interpreted) includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A computer implemented method comprising:
providing an online e-commerce platform for company users, provider users, and client users;
where company users can register their companies with the platform presenting their aesthetic services to client users;
where provider users can register with the platform individually as providers associated with a company and present their aesthetic services to client users; and
where client users seeking specific aesthetic services can search the platform for providers and companies providing such services within a specified geographical location with the use of global positioning system (GPS).
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see paragraph [0002] “The present invention relates to an online service platform and marketplace,” paragraph [0009] “utilizing global positioning system (GPS),” paragraph [0020] “using GPS,” and claim 1 “computer implemented”). This description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
In addition to the above, the recited receiving and transmitting/providing steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim(s) 2-15 and 17, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-15 and 17 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 1 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim 1. Dependent claims 2-15 and 17 do not introduce any further additional elements. Thus, dependent claims 2-15 and 17 are ineligible.
Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims recite additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claim 1: webinars (claim 16). However, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claim 16 is also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheeks (US 2018/0211308 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cheeks discloses a computer implemented method (abstract) comprising:
providing an online e-commerce platform for company users, provider users, and client users (Figs. 2-4; ¶¶0027-0035);
where company users can register their companies with the platform presenting their aesthetic services to client users (Figs. 2-4, 5A, 9; ¶¶0027-0035; Examiner notes a “service network” is comparable to companies; Examiner further notes that while Cheeks discloses this limitation, this limitation is given little patentable weight as the limitation “where company users can register their companies with the platform presenting their aesthetic services to client users” is not a positively recited step that is performed within a method claim);
where provider users can register with the platform individually as providers associated with a company and present their aesthetic services to client users (Figs. 2-4, 5A, 9; ¶¶0027-0035; Examiner further notes that while Cheeks discloses this limitation, this limitation is given little patentable weight as the limitation “where provider users can register with the platform individually as providers associated with a company and present their aesthetic services to client users” is not a positively recited step that is performed within a method claim); and
where client users seeking specific aesthetic services can search the platform for providers and companies providing such services within a specified geographical location (¶¶0052-0054 [in addition to the automatic selections displayed by the system, the user may have the option to use a web portal search engine provided by the system to manually search for service providers… identifying 304, through one or more automated searches in one or more data store, one or more matching service provider based on the determined user style preferences; selecting 306 a number of most relevant service providers for display (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5); and displaying 308, by a peripheral component of the display module of the system, a visual output of the most relevant service providers within a graphic user interface] in view of ¶¶0027-0028 [Style-critical services may include services from hair stylists, hair salons, barbers, nail salons, tattoo artists, beauty parlors, makeup artists, body paint artists, body art artists, piercing artists, fashion and accessory consultants, and wedding planners]) with the use of global positioning system (GPS) (¶¶0053-0054 [user may additionally limit the search based upon several criteria such as: keywords related to the service; location or service area… current location (as determined by GPS/mobile/computer location)]); Examiner further notes that while Cheeks discloses this limitation, this limitation is given little patentable weight as the limitation “where client users seeking specific aesthetic services can search the platform for providers and companies providing such services within a specified geographical location with the use of global positioning system (GPS)” is not a positively recited step that is performed within a method claim.
Regarding claim 2, Cheeks disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising providing a global feed (Fig. 7; ¶0031) where company users and provider users can post photographs, videos and text that will be featured on the global feed (Fig. 7; ¶0031 in view of ¶0035, ¶0046, and ¶0054 [The visual output 320 in the user interface may comprise a plurality of summary profiles of service providers that may include one or more images of one or more preferred styles. Alternatively, or additionally, the visual output 320 may include icons that link to an image gallery of a service provider or other user, to another user's favorite list, or to a video.]; Examiner further notes that while Cheeks discloses this limitation, the description of “where company users and provider users can post photographs, videos and text that will be featured on the global feed” is given little patentable weight as this part of the limitation is not a positively recited step that is performed within a method claim).
Regarding claim 3, Cheeks disclose the method of claim 2, further comprising providing the ability of a client user, company user and provider user to like, comment and save posts made by provider users and company users (Fig. 3, 4, 9, 10a-10b; ¶0054 [user data 310 which may include one or more of: a user's browsing history, purchasing history, profile, profile images, shared images, tagged images, liked images, saved images, location on profile, current location (as determined by GPS/mobile/computer location), reviews written, past bookings of service providers, and the user's interaction with other users in the style app. Identification of matching service providers may analogously be based on service provider data 312 which may include one or more of: a service provider's, profile, profile images, shared images, tagged images, liked images, saved images, style selections on profile, services provided to users, reviews by other users, ratings by other users, favorites by other users, lists by other users, past bookings by other users, information from social networks, availability, proximity, and the service provider's interaction with other users in the style app.]).
Regarding claim 4, Cheeks disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising providing a calendar system where the client user can make an appointment directly through the platform with company user (Figs. 3 and 8A; ¶¶0035-0036 [A comprehensive subscription may cover one or more service providers, and service providers may be given the option to form a service network within the system, an optional profile for the network showcasing its members, and subprofiles for individual network members…to book an appointment in another module identified as the Easy Appointment Center part of the user/subscriber interface, the system may display a calendar with time slots for one or more chosen service providers. For the user, filter options may be provided to only show certain time periods, days, or times of the day, for a particular service provider, or a particular set of service providers. The calendar may be adjusted to a user's/subscriber's preferences e.g. starting day, time slots shown, days shown, and/or time period shown (week, month, year). The user may choose to show results for a particular service provider or a particular set of service providers. The subscriber may customize the calendar, e.g. to particular days/times worked, and day/time restrictions for particular locations. The system may automatically book time slots according to a user's and subscriber's requirements and options.] in view of ¶0032 [The system may include a data store with a directory of service providers such as hair and/or nail salons, tattoo parlors etc. that may include regional, national and international service providers with their details such as name, business address(es) and service location(s), availability (e.g. calendar 802 with time slots 804), services provided 806 a-c and particular styles specialized in.]).
Regarding claim 5, Cheeks disclose the method of claim 4, further comprising providing the ability of the client user to make a payment directly through the platform for the services to be rendered by company user and provider user (Figs. 3, 4, 8B-8D; ¶0033 [a button configured to process a direct payment through the system, e.g. via a user's credit card or credit with a store as depicted in FIGS. 4 and 10]).
Regarding claim 6, Cheeks disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising providing a chat feature where only a client user can initiate communication with a company user and provider user (Fig. 4, element 402; ¶0033) and share photos, videos and text communications with provider user and company user at which point company user and provider user can engage in communication with client user (¶0037 [the system includes a review module for users to review of their service experience. A user's review may include one or more of a rating (numerical, stars, emoji), a textual description, and one or more picture of a service provider's work, e.g. of their hairstyle, outfit, or tattoo. The pictures may be included in one of the system's modules (review module, search module) to determine future results determined and displayed to users as they enter the system's web portal]); Examiner notes that while Cheeks discloses this limitation, the description of “where only a client user can initiate communication with a company user and provider user and share photos, videos and text communications with provider user and company user at which point company user and provider user can engage in communication with client user” is given little patentable weight as this part of the limitation is not a positively recited step that is performed within a method claim.
Regarding claim 8, Cheeks disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising providing the ability of company users to specify the type of devices used and available in association with each aesthetic service (¶¶0040-0041 [the system may include featured products… featured products may be targeted based on a user's style preferences determined by the system and may, for example, include hair products such as shampoo, conditioner, hair mask, brushes, combs, hair dryer, makeup kit, facial mask, skin products, skin lotion, etc… sharing which products they currently use and by recommending certain products to their clients, or a particular group of their clients]; Examiner notes combs, brushes, hair dryer are comparable to devices).
Regarding claim 9, Cheeks disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising providing the ability to link each provider user with a company user (¶0035).
Regarding claim 10, Cheeks disclose the method of claim 1, where each company user and provider user identifies the scope of services provided, applicable certifications and credentials, work history and experience, their current location and an optional photograph (Figs. 3, 9-10b; ¶0006 [the user interface comprises a service provider profile which comprises one or more of a name, business address, service location, and images], ¶0033 [the service provider's public profile 902 serves as an interface for the consumer and may include name 904, business address(es) 906, service location(s), and images 908 showcasing the service provider's works, including a profile image 910 and an image gallery. The images may include images of styles specialized in, e.g. a particular hair style or cut. The images may include linked information regarding consumer reviews with comments 1008 a-b and prices 1010 a-b], ¶0035 [upon signing up, the system may present the service provider with a number of subscription options which may differ in price based on e.g. specific services offered and breadth of services, e.g. a basic subscription may include just one service (e.g. hair or tattoo), and a more comprehensive subscription may include more services. A basic subscription includes a professional profile which will showcase the past work of the professional… The profile may include text and images of past work, an Easy Appointment Center, a royalty and promotion program, and a fan base where the service provider can entertain fans with posts about their latest work. A comprehensive subscription may cover one or more service providers, and service providers may be given the option to form a service network within the system, an optional profile for the network showcasing its members, and subprofiles for individual network members. The system may automatically offer options to change a service provider's current subscription option or suggest forming networks based on an overlapping customer base as determined automatically by the system]).
Regarding claim 11, Cheeks disclose the method of claim 1, where goods relating to aesthetic services are featured and available for purchase through the platform (¶¶0040-0041 [the system may include featured products… featured products may be targeted based on a user's style preferences determined by the system and may, for example, include hair products such as shampoo, conditioner, hair mask, brushes, combs, hair dryer, makeup kit, facial mask, skin products, skin lotion, etc.] in view of ¶0047 [enable clients who are users of the system to obtain discounts on products or credits for services requested via the system in embodiments of the present invention]; Examiner notes requested is comparable to purchase).
Regarding claim 12, Cheeks disclose the method of claim 11, where provider users and company users can recommend goods to clients for use and clients can purchase recommended goods directly through the platform (¶¶0040-0041 [service providers may have the option to join a style referral program. By “sharing your style”, a service provider may make commissions on sharing and recommending options, e.g. by sharing which products they currently use and by recommending certain products to their clients, or a particular group of their clients. These products include the featured products listed above] in view of ¶0047 [enable clients who are users of the system to obtain discounts on products or credits for services requested via the system in embodiments of the present invention]; Examiner notes requested is comparable to purchase); Examiner further notes that while Cheeks discloses this limitation, this limitation is given little patentable weight as the limitation “where provider users and company users can recommend goods to clients for use and clients can purchase recommended goods directly through the platform” is not a positively recited step that is performed within a method claim.
Regarding claim 13, Cheeks disclose the method of claim 1, featuring a reward system for client users, where client users transacting through the platform, will gain rewards that can be applied to future services and the purchase of goods through the platform (¶¶0042-0043 [service providers may have the option to offer a promotion code that may be entered into the system by the service provider, that may then be automatically processed by the system. Automatic processing may include automatic offers sent to customers based on the system's determination of the customer's interest in a particular style offered by the service provider, a service provider's proximity in locations previously chosen by the consumer, and/or a service provider's availability in time… service providers may have the option to offer royalty programs and discounts based on customer loyalty to customers, for example discounts or free appointments based on a plurality of previous appointments, e.g. free haircut or 20% discount after the 5th visit ]).
Regarding claim 14, Cheeks disclose the method of claim 1, where one individual can have a client profile, a company profile and a provider profile, and can switch from one profile to another through the platform (Figs. 5a-9; ¶¶0029-0031); Examiner further notes that while Cheeks discloses this limitation, this limitation is given little patentable weight as the limitation “where one individual can have a client profile, a company profile and a provider profile, and can switch from one profile to another through the platform” is not a positively recited step that is performed within a method claim.
Regarding claim 15, Cheeks disclose the method of claim 1, where a client user can filter and select at home aesthetic services (¶0053 [user may additionally limit the search based upon several criteria such as: keywords related to the service; location or service area; time and date for the service; pricing; preferred location for the service to take place (e.g. at the user's home or the office of the service provider)]); Examiner further notes that while Cheeks discloses this limitation, this limitation is given little patentable weight as the limitation “where a client user can filter and select at home aesthetic services” is not a positively recited step that is performed within a method claim.
Regarding claim 16, Cheeks disclose the method of claim 1, where provider users and company users can host educational webinars on the platform (¶0046 [give users who are service providers the ability to “go live” and stream live video online via the system. This will permit service providers to display their abilities and work in real time and allow current or prospective customers to view the professional in action]); Examiner further notes that while Cheeks discloses this limitation, this limitation is given little patentable weight as the limitation “where provider users and company users can host educational webinars on the platform...
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheeks in view of Keller (Keller US 2017/0032329 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Cheeks disclose the method of claim 1. While Cheeks discloses further comprising providing an internal calendaring system for company users, where company users can set appointment time, and the internal calendaring system will calculate appointment time and determine available time slots based on prior appointments and availability and generate appointment dates and time for client users (¶0036; Examiner notes that while Cheeks discloses this limitation, the description of “where company users can set appointment time” is given little patentable weight as this part of the limitation is not a positively recited step that is performed within a method claim), Cheeks does not explicitly disclose an appointment duration time for each aesthetic service the company user provides. However, in the field of booking appointments within a scheduling database (abstract), Keller teaches a duration time for each aesthetic service a company provides and generating available appointment dates and times within a calendar system based on the duration time of the selected service (Figs. 6, 18, 19, 25, and 29; ¶¶0073-0076, ¶¶0116-0118). The step of Keller is applicable to the method of Cheeks as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to booking appointments online. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the calendar system as taught by Cheeks with service duration time as taught by Keller. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Cheeks in order to account for an associated duration for the service when scheduling availably time slots (¶¶0116-0118).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheeks in view of Jaehn et al. (US 2003/0125994 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Cheeks disclose the method of claim 1. While Cheeks further discloses further comprising providing a rating system for client users to rate providers and companies from 1-5 (Figs. 9 [5.0 rating] and 1-5 stars, and 10a; ¶0037 [a review module for users to review of their service experience. A user's review may include one or more of a rating (numerical, stars, emoji), a textual description, and one or more picture of a service provider's work, e.g. of their hairstyle, outfit, or tattoo.]), Cheeks does not explicitly disclose 1 being least satisfied and 5 being most satisfied. However, in the field of displaying services based on a user search query (abstract), Jaehn et al., hereinafter Jaehn teaches ratings can be based according to a 1-5 scale, with 1 being the least desirable and 5 being the most desirable (¶0035). The step of Jaehn is applicable to the method of Cheeks as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to ratings of services provided. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the ratings as taught by Cheeks with 1 being the least desirable and 5 being the most desirable as taught by Jaehn. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Cheeks in order to rate services according to a 1-5 scale which includes a 1-5 star scale (¶0035).
Examiner’s Comment
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reference U of the Notice of References Cited Non Patent Literature “Prototype Development For Online Reservation System in Barbershop and Salon Industry” teaches an online reservation system for salons which customers can register and book appointments, stylists can manage their schedule, and companies can enable customers to book an appointment with the company’s stylists.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688