DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 10-11, 14, and 20 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot. In light of current amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made in further view of Ranganathan (US 2012/0209773).
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 07/22/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the additional elements integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Specifically, Applicant argues that converting a representation of a value into a value token requires a transformation and therefore, integrates any abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The physical representation of value (e.g., the article) has still not been transformed. The physical representation of value itself does not have a new or different function or use. The physical representation of value has not been physically changed to a different state or thing. The physical representation of value still remains as is. At best, the conversion is merely the transferring of data contained in the physical representation of value to the value token. This is changing the location of the data and not actually transforming the physical representation of value. For at least these reasons, Examiner maintains the previous 35 USC 101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis the claims are directed to statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-10, is directed to the process. Additionally, the system, as claimed in claims 11-20, is directed to a machine.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of determining when to convert a representation of value. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
Receiving, from a value token user, a request to convert a representation of value into a value token, wherein the representation of value is associated with a specific purchasing activity;
Receiving an indication of the specific purchasing activity;
Receiving an indication of a value token user’s geographic location;
Receiving an indication of a representation of value’s geographic location; and
determining a risk of fraud from the value token user’s geographic location and the representation of value’s geographic location; wherein a conversion of the representation of value into a value token may be paused for a period of time or denied based on the risk of fraud.
These recited limitations fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites n abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, 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. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations 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). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as a computer implemented method and intelligent code. Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant's specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., providing item information) being applied on a general-purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the 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). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components...‘ad[d] nothing. ..that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’... [and] [v]iewed as a whole...[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-10do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claims 2-10 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 1. Dependent claims 2-10 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claim 1. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Thus, dependent claims 2-10 are also ineligible.
Independent claim 11 recites the same abstract idea represented in representative claim 1. Independent Claim 11 recites a system comprising computer devices and intelligent code. The additional elements in Independent claim 11 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Similarly, the dependent claims 12-20 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claims 2-10. Therefore, the additional elements to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claims 2-10, respectively.
Thus, dependent claims 12-20 are also ineligible.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-12, 14-15, and 19-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2014/0025519) in view of Wiesman et al. (US 2014/0279494), and further in view of Ranganathan (US 2012/0209773).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Thomas discloses A computer implemented method comprising: (See at least Abstract, paragraph [0050], [0053])
Receiving, from a value token user, a request to convert a representation of value into a value token, wherein the representation of value is associated with a specific purchasing activity, and wherein the representation of value comprises an intelligent code (See at least paragraph [0162]-[0163] disclosing representation of front and back packaging at retail outlet and consumer can have barcode scanned which transmits requests for validation – purchase form suitable retail outlet, [00166]-[0172] disclosing electronic data record used for the representation of dynamic content include qr code, name, etc., Fig. 33-35, claim 4)
Receiving an indication of the specific purchasing activity (See at least paragraph [0163]-[0165] disclosing request for validation, if validation data matches the copy of validation data, the gift card is validated and dynamic content representative of the dollar amount is to be loaded onto the gift card))
A conversion of the representation of value into a value token (See at least Fig. 19 disclosing my cards, 22, 24, 33-35 disclosing card with no value until purchase and must be taken to cashier to activate, includes qr code and barcode, paragraph [0128], [0152], [0136], [0147], [0162], [0166] disclosing barcode can be scanned and validation data can be encoded in visual artifact, [0169] disclosing the associated gift card has been loaded and there is option to use electronic data record and/or dynamic content (i.e., the $150 as provided by selecting the representation), and [0171] disclosing transforming a qr code (i.e., intelligent code information) into dynamic content which can be a gift card which includes barcode that is interpretable by a point of sale device).
Thomas does not expressly provide for Receiving an indication of a geographic location of the specific purchasing activity; and determining a risk of fraud form the geographic location wherein the transaction may be paused for a period of time or denied based on the risk of fraud and if the fraud risk is determined to be acceptably low, provide, to the value token user, the value token.
However, Wiesman discloses Receiving an indication of a geographic location (See at least paragraph [0006] disclosing identifying geographic location of mobile device, [0028] disclosing identifying geographic location); and determining a risk of fraud form the geographic location wherein the transaction may be paused for a period of time or denied based on the risk of fraud and if the fraud risk is determined to be acceptably low, provide, to the value token user, the value token (See at least paragraph [0030]-[0032] disclosing determining fraud factor in a payment transaction by using identified data involving the consumer including location data – location data may include determining consumer is outside of their home market etc. and determining whether there is a low or high likelihood of a fraudulent transaction happening and use score to determine whether transaction should be authorized, [0040] disclosing receive response indicating approval or denial of payment transaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included determining risk associated with a location as taught by Wiesman in the purchasing system of Thomas because it would help take into account consumers who travel regularly and help prevent and identify fraud more quickly when the fraudulent transaction occurs in order to remedy the situation. See Wiesman paragraph [0001]-[0003].
However, neither Thomas nor Wiesman expressly provide for receiving an indication of a value token user’s geographic location; receiving an indication of a representation of value’s geographic location; and determining a risk of fraud from the value token user’s geographic location and the representation of value’s geographic location.
Ranganathan discloses receiving an indication of a value token user’s geographic location; receiving an indication of a representation of value’s geographic location; and determining a risk of fraud from the value token user’s geographic location and the representation of value’s geographic location (See at least paragraph [0007] disclosing receiving location of user’s mobile device to obtain an indication of the user, receiving information regarding the transaction and compare the location of the user with a location of the credit card transaction, and determining a likelihood of fraud based on the differences in the locations, [0024] disclosing comparing location of user’s cell phone against location of credit card transaction to determine the propensity for fraud in a given transaction, [0026] disclosing knowing location of user and location of transaction in both physical and online world at time of transaction can vastly improve decision making on the legitimacy of the transaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included using both user location and representation of value location as taught by Ranganathan in the purchasing system of Thomas/Wiesman because it would vastly i8mpove decision making on legitimacy of a transaction. See Ranganathan paragraph [0026].
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Thomas, Wiesman, and Ranganathan teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Additionally, Thomas discloses wherein the representation of value is a prepaid card and the conversion of the representation of value into a value token includes activation of the prepaid card (Thomas: See at least Fig. 19 disclosing my cards, 22, 24, 33-35 disclosing card with no value until purchase and must be taken to cashier to activate, includes qr code and barcode, paragraph [0128], [0152], [0136], [0147], [0162], [0166] disclosing barcode can be scanned and validation data can be encoded in visual artifact, [0169] disclosing the associated gift card has been loaded and there is option to use electronic data record and/or dynamic content (i.e., the $150 as provided by selecting the representation), and [0171] disclosing transforming a qr code (i.e., intelligent code information) into dynamic content which can be a gift card which includes barcode that is interpretable by a point of sale device, [0166]-[0167] disclosing validations that allow dynamic content representative of the dollar amount to be loaded, such that electronic awards can be transferred, Table I disclosing prepaid card as representation of stored value card).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Thomas, Wiesman, and Ranganathan teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Thomas discloses wherein the period of time is zero (See at least paragraph [0085] disclosing automatic determination, [0126] disclosing immediate activation of dynamic content such as adding points/miles to account, [0176] disclosing payment occurring automatically). Thomas does not expressly provide for wherein the period of time is zero time when there is no risk of fraud determined based on the geographic location. However, Wiesman discloses wherein the period of time is zero time when there is no risk of fraud determined based on the geographic location (See at least paragraph [0030]-[0032] disclosing an identified low likelihood of fraudulent transaction/ transaction is not fraudulent, [0040] disclosing approval or denial of the payment transaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included determining risk associated with a location as taught by Wiesman in the purchasing system of Thomas because it would help take into account consumers who travel regularly and help prevent and identify fraud more quickly when the fraudulent transaction occurs in order to remedy the situation. See Wiesman paragraph [0001]-[0003].
Neither Thomas nor Wiesman expressly provide for the determination based on the value token user’s geographic location and the representation of value’s geographic location. However, Ranganathan discloses the determination based on the value token user’s geographic location and the representation of value’s geographic location (See at least paragraph [0007] disclosing receiving location of user’s mobile device to obtain an indication of the user, receiving information regarding the transaction and compare the location of the user with a location of the credit card transaction, and determining a likelihood of fraud based on the differences in the locations, [0024] disclosing comparing location of user’s cell phone against location of credit card transaction to determine the propensity for fraud in a given transaction, [0026] disclosing knowing location of user and location of transaction in both physical and online world at time of transaction can vastly improve decision making on the legitimacy of the transaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included using both user location and representation of value location as taught by Ranganathan in the purchasing system of Thomas/Wiesman because it would vastly i8mpove decision making on legitimacy of a transaction. See Ranganathan paragraph [0026].
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Thomas, Wiesman, and Ranganathan teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Thomas does not expressly provide for withholding the value token when the risk of fraud is determined to be high. However, Wiesman discloses withholding the value token when the risk of fraud is determined to be high (See at least paragraph [0030]-[0032] disclosing an identified low likelihood of fraudulent transaction/ transaction is not fraudulent, [0040] disclosing approval or denial of the payment transaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included determining risk associated with a location as taught by Wiesman in the purchasing system of Thomas because it would help take into account consumers who travel regularly and help prevent and identify fraud more quickly when the fraudulent transaction occurs in order to remedy the situation. See Wiesman paragraph [0001]-[0003].
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Thomas, Wiesman, and Ranganathan teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Additionally, Thomas discloses wherein the period of time is zero time. (See at least paragraph [0085] disclosing automatic determination, [0126] disclosing immediate activation of dynamic content such as adding points/miles to account, [0176] disclosing payment occurring automatically)
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Thomas, Wiesman, and Ranganathan teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Thomas does not expressly provide for withholding the value token based on the geographic location. However, Wiesman discloses withholding the value token based on the geographic location (See at least paragraph [0030]-[0032] disclosing determining fraud factor in a payment transaction by using identified data involving the consumer including location data – location data may include determining consumer is outside of their home market etc. and determining whether there is a low or high likelihood of a fraudulent transaction happening and use score to determine whether transaction should be authorized, [0040] disclosing receive response indicating approval or denial of payment transaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included determining risk associated with a location as taught by Wiesman in the purchasing system of Thomas because it would help take into account consumers who travel regularly and help prevent and identify fraud more quickly when the fraudulent transaction occurs in order to remedy the situation. See Wiesman paragraph [0001]-[0003].
Neither Thomas nor Wiesman expressly provide for the withholding being based on both the value token user’s geographic location and the representation of value’s geographic location. However, Ranganathan discloses the withholding being based on both the value token user’s geographic location and the representation of value’s geographic location (See at least paragraph [0007] disclosing receiving location of user’s mobile device to obtain an indication of the user, receiving information regarding the transaction and compare the location of the user with a location of the credit card transaction, and determining a likelihood of fraud based on the differences in the locations, [0024] disclosing comparing location of user’s cell phone against location of credit card transaction to determine the propensity for fraud in a given transaction, [0026] disclosing knowing location of user and location of transaction in both physical and online world at time of transaction can vastly improve decision making on the legitimacy of the transaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included using both user location and representation of value location as taught by Ranganathan in the purchasing system of Thomas/Wiesman because it would vastly i8mpove decision making on legitimacy of a transaction. See Ranganathan paragraph [0026].
Claims 3, 6-8, 13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2014/0025519) in view of Wiesman et al. (US 2014/0279494), in view of Ranganathan (US 2012/0209773), and further in view of Purpura (US 2009/0125632).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Thomas, Wiesman, and Ranganathan teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 2 and 12. However, neither expressly provides for pausing providing the value token for a first period of time when the risk of fraud is low; pausing providing the value token for a second period time when the risk of fraud is high; wherein the second period of time is greater than the first period of time.
Purpura discloses pausing providing the value token for a first period of time when the risk of fraud is low; pausing providing the value token for a second period time when the risk of fraud is high; wherein the second period of time is greater than the first period of time (See at least paragraph [0001]-[0003], [0071] disclosing based on network address deciding whether to permit client access or enforce delay of client’s transactions for predefined delay interval, halt client’s from accessing application program, or permanently deny the client access to the application program – determination Is made based on data such as current transaction interval, history, and network address information, [0079] disclosing delay time interval is amount of time that processing transaction from a network address is paused after security exit program determines that an accumulator exceeds the transaction delay threshold – delay time interval is dynamically modifiable during the process, [0130] disclosing delay current transaction by the delay time, decrease in value of network address accumulator results in removal of delay, etc., Fig. 2B, 3, 4A-4B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included different pause times based on risk as taught by Purpura in the purchasing system of Thomas because it would provide for more flexible monitory tools regarding denial and access using pre-defined thresholds and delays. See Purpura paragraphs [0001]-[0003].
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Thomas, Wiesman, and Ranganathan teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Thomas does not expressly provide for pausing providing the value token for a first period of time in a first geographic location; pausing providing the value token for a second period of item in a second geographic location; wherein the second period of time is greater than the first period of time. Wiesman discloses evaluating first and second geographic locations for whether they may be accepted or denied (See at least paragraph [0030]-[0032] disclosing determining fraud factor in a payment transaction by using identified data involving the consumer including location data – location data may include determining consumer is outside of their home market etc. and determining whether there is a low or high likelihood of a fraudulent transaction happening and use score to determine whether transaction should be authorized, [0040] disclosing receive response indicating approval or denial of payment transaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included determining risk associated with a location as taught by Wiesman in the purchasing system of Thomas because it would help take into account consumers who travel regularly and help prevent and identify fraud more quickly when the fraudulent transaction occurs in order to remedy the situation. See Wiesman paragraph [0001]-[0003].
Purpura discloses pausing providing the value token for a first period of time in a first address; pausing providing the value token for a second period of item in a second address; wherein the second period of time is greater than the first period of time. (See at least paragraph [0001]-[0003], [0071] disclosing based on network address deciding whether to permit client access or enforce delay of client’s transactions for predefined delay interval, halt client’s from accessing application program, or permanently deny the client access to the application program – determination Is made based on data such as current transaction interval, history, and network address information, [0034] disclosing tacking user IDs and network addresses to determine current transaction rates that may result in warnings, delay, halting, or denials, [0079] disclosing delay time interval is amount of time that processing transaction from a network address is paused after security exit program determines that an accumulator exceeds the transaction delay threshold – delay time interval is dynamically modifiable during the process, [0130] disclosing delay current transaction by the delay time, decrease in value of network address accumulator results in removal of delay, etc., Fig. 2B, 3, 4A-4B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included different pause times based on risk as taught by Purpura in the purchasing system of Thomas because it would provide for more flexible monitory tools regarding denial and access using pre-defined thresholds and delays. See Purpura paragraphs [0001]-[0003].
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Thomas, Wiesman, Ranganathan, and Purpura teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 6 and 16. Thomas does not expressly provide for wherein the first geographic location has a low risk of fraud. However, Wiesman discloses wherein the first geographic location has a low risk of fraud (See at least paragraph [0030]-[0032] disclosing determining fraud factor in a payment transaction by using identified data involving the consumer including location data – location data may include determining consumer is outside of their home market etc. and determining whether there is a low or high likelihood of a fraudulent transaction happening and use score to determine whether transaction should be authorized, [0040] disclosing receive response indicating approval or denial of payment transaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included determining risk associated with a location as taught by Wiesman in the purchasing system of Thomas because it would help take into account consumers who travel regularly and help prevent and identify fraud more quickly when the fraudulent transaction occurs in order to remedy the situation. See Wiesman paragraph [0001]-[0003].
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Thomas, Wiesman, Ranganathan, and Purpura teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 7 and 17. Thomas does not expressly provide for wherein the second geographic location has a high risk of fraud. However, Wiesman discloses wherein the second geographic location has a high risk of fraud (See at least paragraph [0030]-[0032] disclosing determining fraud factor in a payment transaction by using identified data involving the consumer including location data – location data may include determining consumer is outside of their home market etc. and determining whether there is a low or high likelihood of a fraudulent transaction happening and use score to determine whether transaction should be authorized, [0040] disclosing receive response indicating approval or denial of payment transaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included determining risk associated with a location as taught by Wiesman in the purchasing system of Thomas because it would help take into account consumers who travel regularly and help prevent and identify fraud more quickly when the fraudulent transaction occurs in order to remedy the situation. See Wiesman paragraph [0001]-[0003].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY E BARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-2861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 6:00pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
/B.E.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
