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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant filed an amendment on 9/8/26. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. No new matter has been added. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of these claims. After careful consideration of the applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot in view of new grounds of rejection. This action is a Final 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 they are directed to an abstract idea without more.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to system, method and non-transitory computer readable medium which are statutory claim classes. (step 1 yes)
The examiner has identified claim 8 as representative similar to 1, 15.
The limitations of claim 8 are directed to document access and consent requests.
These limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Which is a fundamental economic practice.
Claim 8 contains the following abstract limitations,
receiving, via a …. of a customer, a request to receive access to one or more disclosure documents associated with a financial account in electronic format, the request comprising a customer identifier; sending, to the … of the customer via a unique messaging address associated with the customer, an electronic consent request to receive the one or more disclosure documents in electronic format; receive a response from the …. of the customer accepting the electronic consent request; sending, to the … of the customer, an electronic message comprising a …; receiving a signal in response to the … being selected, the signal comprising the customer identifier and a network address associated with the … the customer; transmitting to the … of the customer and displaying on the … of the customer the one or more disclosure documents, based on the network address and in response to the … being selected; and creating and storing an audit trail in a memory location of a customer database associated with a customer account associated with the customer identifier, wherein the audit trail includes a first confirmation that the customer consented to receive the one or more disclosure documents in electronic format and a second confirmation that the customer was provided access to the one or more disclosure documents based on the signal including the customer identifier.
Here the most relevant technical items are the “computing device of the customer” and hyperlink with the supporting network address. However, the invention is more directed to an idea on a customer device, only one device is required and the hyperlink is generic. However, applicant could further incorporate another device and a more specific technical connection to the hyperlink.
Claims 1, 15 are similar. Step 2A prong 1 the claims recite an abstract idea (yes)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular the claims recite additional elements of “computing device of the customer”. By amendment , via a unique messaging address associated with the customer.
The computer hardware/software are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no than instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly these additional elements which considered separately or as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality.
Thus claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. Step 2A prong 2 (no)
The claims do not include additional elements to amount to significantly more “inventive concept”
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 do not add any further elements and thus are rejected because they depend on claims 1, 8 and 15.
It is noted that 0031, 0035 disclose hyperlinks and other elements that might be utilized in combination to create a practical and technical application that would overcome 35 UCS 101.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Patent to Johnson 9373002 in view US Patent to Brown 7698230 and Gropper Publication 20070027715
As per claim 8 Johnson discloses; A method comprising: receiving, via a computing device of a customer, a request to receive access to one or more disclosure documents associated with a financial account in electronic format, the request comprising a customer identifier;
sending, to the computing device of the customer, via a unique messaging address associated with the customer (col. 14 lines 20-25, or unique messaging address of the recipient, col. I lines 20-30, in applicant specification 0024 “unique messaging address” may be an email address....)
an electronic consent request to receive the one or more disclosure documents in electronic format; receive a response from the computing device of the customer accepting the electronic consent request; Johnson(col. 21, lines 10-15 consent to release document and table 1)
transmitting to the computing device of the customer and displaying on the computing device of the customer the one or more disclosure documents; based on the network address and
Johnson(co. 3 lines 15-25, what is a disclosure document)
and creating and storing an audit trail in a memory location of a customer database associated with a customer account associated with the customer identifier, wherein the audit trail includes a first confirmation Johnson (fig. 12 audit trail, col. 20 audit record)
Johnson does not explicitly disclose what Brown teaches;
Brown,
that the customer consented to receive the one or more disclosure documents in electronic format and a second confirmation that the customer was provided access to the one or more disclosure documents. Based on the signal including the customer identifier
(col. 10)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the financial disclosures of Johnson with the consent of Brown for the motivation of reducing processing costs (col. 1 lines 50-55)
Johnson and Brown do not explicitly disclose what Gropper teaches;
send to the computing device of the customer an electronic message comprising a hyperlink
receiving a signal in response to the hyperlink being selected, the signal comprising the customer identifier and a network address associated with the computing device of the customer
Gropper(0234, selectable hyperlink)
in response to the hyperlink being selected Gropper(0234, hyperlink that is selectable to view customer info) Gropper motivation
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Johnson’s disclosures with Gropper’s hyperlink for the motivation of “better sharing medical information” (0005)
Claims 1, 15 are similar to claim 8.
As per claims 2, 9 and 16 Johnson discloses;
the system of claim 1, wherein the audit trail includes a date and time stamp corresponding to when the request to receive access to the one or more disclosure documents in electronic format was received from the computing device of the customer.
Johnson (table 3)
As per claims 3, 10 and 17 Johnson discloses;
The system of claim 1, further configured to send an electronic message to the computing device of the customer using the unique messaging address associated with the customer.
Johnson (col. 9 lines 20-25 email address)
As per claims 4, 11 and 18 Johnson discloses;
The system of claim 3, wherein the request to receive access to the one or more disclosure documents in electronic format is received by the system based on the electronic message.
Johnson(col. 13 lines 55-65)
As per claims 5, 12 and 19 Johnson does not explicitly disclose what Brown teaches;
the system of claim 3, wherein the electronic message sent to the computing device of the customer contains the customer identifier.
Brown (Col. 12 social security number)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the financial disclosures of Johnson with the consent of Brown for the motivation of reducing processing costs (col. 1 lines 50-55)
As per claims 6, 13 and 20 Johnson does not explicitly disclose what Brown teaches;
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more disclosure documents are retrievably stored in a structured format, the structured format based on at least one of an attribute indicative of a state, an attribute indicative of a jurisdiction, or an account-specific parameter.
Brown(col 15 jurisdiction specific consents)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the financial disclosures of Johnson with the consent of Brown for the motivation of reducing processing costs (col. 1 lines 50-55)
As per claims 7, 14 Johnson does not explicitly disclose what Brown teaches;
The system of claim 1, wherein the customer identifier includes a parameter indicative of a state or jurisdiction.
Brown(col 15 jurisdiction specific consents)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the financial disclosures of Johnson with the consent of Brown for the motivation of reducing processing costs (col. 1 lines 50-55)
Response to Arguments
Applicant filed an amendment on 9/8/26. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. No new matter has been added.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of these claims. After careful consideration of the applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot in view of new grounds of rejection. This action is a Final Rejection.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are allegedly directed to an abstract idea without more.
Without acquiescing to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and solely to further
prosecution on its merits, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the Section 101 claim rejections are moot and overcome. To aid the Examiner's review, Applicant provides the following remarks and respectfully submits that, using the two-part subject matter eligibility framework articulated in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., ("Alice Corp.") and set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. ("Mayo"), the amended independent claims 1, 8, and-7-
15 are not directed toward an abstract idea and, even arguendo if considered directed to an abstract idea, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea, or amount to significantly more than an abstract idea itself and therefore are directed toward statutory subject matter under Section 101.
Step 2A Analysis
Step 2A Prong One
On pages 2-3 of the Office Action, and with respect to the Step 2A analysis, the Examiner asserts that the claims fall within the "Method of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Specifically, the Examiner asserts that the claims fall under the "fundamental economic practice" subgrouping. Applicant submits that the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility published October 17, 2019 ("October Update") states:
The term "certain" qualifies the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as a reminder of several important points.
First, not all methods of organizing human activity are October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility 5 abstract ideas (e.g., "a defined set of steps for combining particular ingredients to create a drug formulation" is not a "certain method of organizing human activity"). Second, this grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior, and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances as explained in Section III(C) of the
2019 PEG.
(October Update, pages 4 and 5).
Applicant respectfully submits that the limitations of amended claims 1, 8, and 15 do not fall within the "fundamental economic practice" sub-groupings of "methods of organizing human activity." Rather, amended claim 1 recites: "send, to the computing device of the customer via a unique messaging address associated with the customer, an electronic consent request to receive the one or more disclosure documents in electronic format," "receive a
response from the computing device of the customer accepting the electronic consent request," "send, to the computing device of the customer, an electronic message comprising a hyperlink," "receive a signal in response to the hyperlink being selected, the signal comprising the customer identifier and a network address associated with the computing device of the customer," "transmit to the computing device of the customer and display on the computing device of the customer the one or more disclosure documents, based on the network address and in response to the hyperlink being selected," and "create and store an audit trail in a memory location of a customer database associated with a customer account associated with the customer identifier, wherein the audit trail includes a first confirmation that the customer consented to receive the one or more disclosure documents in electronic format and a second confirmation that the customer was provided access to the one or more disclosure documents based on the signal including the customer identifier." (Emphasis added). Applicant respectfully submits that these features are not related to the abstract idea of a "fundamental economic practice," in their broadest reasonable interpretation, as alleged by the Examiner.
Accordingly, the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Even assuming arguendo that this is not the case, Applicant respectfully submits that at least the above cited limitations must be properly treated as "additional elements" and therefore considered in the "practical application" and "significantly more" analysis at least because these operations are not tangential to the features recited in amended claims 1, 8, and 15.
Here the applicant has made progress by adding hyperlink. However, the hyperlink is known routine and conventional so the examiner suggested considering some more specific elements that are more technical. However, overall the applicant has made some progress in regards to the amendment.
Step 2A Prong Two
The Office Action alleges that the "judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application." (Office Action p. 3). However, "the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the exception may integrate it into a practical application. Accordingly, the additional limitations should not be evaluated in a vacuum, completely separate from the recited judicial exception. Instead, the analysis should take into consideration all the claim limitations and how those limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application." MPEP 2106.04(d)(III).
The claimed system implements a set of steps that are integrated into an overall claimed process, which, when viewed as a whole, has the clear, practical application of an improved computing system. The improved computing system enables the transmission of disclosure documents via a computing device of a customer and in response to receiving electronic consent. Additional technical advantages of the claimed process are described in the specification in at least paragraphs [0030] and [0031], which disclose:
[0030] For example, referring now to FIG. 3 , an electronic message 300 that may be used to provide access to electronic disclosure materials according to an exemplary embodiment is shown. In the illustrated embodiment, message 300 is shown displayed on the screen of a mobile device 301. Message 300 includes a hyperlink 302 associated with a graphical button labeled "Access Disclosures"
that may be selected in order to access, for example, a web application or landing page hosted by a computer system (e.g.,
computer system 103 shown in FIG. 1 ).
[0031] Referring again to FIG. 1 , when hyperlink 118 is selected, mobile device 101 may execute a client application, such as a web browser or other mobile application configured to create and send, for example, a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request 120 to computer system 103. Request 120 may serve as an indication from customer 102 via mobile device 101 acknowledging that customer 102 has been given access to disclosure documents 108. Request 120 may include network address 114 as well as customer identifier 116. Upon receiving request 120, computer system 103 may determine whether mobile device 101 has indeed accessed network address 114 by verifying that the request contains customer
identifier 116.
(Emphasis added). One of skill in the art would appreciate that a problem in the technical field of accessing disclosure documents is secure transmission and the ability to document consent. To increase transmission security and document consent to electronic disclosure, the current application and the amended claims recite a process including: "send, to the computing device of the customer, an electronic message comprising a hyperlink," "receive a signal in response to
the hyperlink being selected, the signal comprising the customer identifier and a network address associated with the computing device of the customer," "transmit to the computing-10-
device of the customer and display on the computing device of the customer the one or more disclosure documents, based on the network address and in response to the hyperlink being selected," and "create and store an audit trail in a memory location of a customer database associated with a customer account associated with the customer identifier, wherein the audit trail includes a first confirmation that the customer consented to receive the one or more disclosure documents in electronic format and a second confirmation that the customer was provided access to the one or more disclosure documents based on the signal including the customer identifier," as recited in amended claim 1 and analogously recited in claims 8 and 15. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 integrates a practical application by reciting the aforementioned features, which improve the relevant technology in the field.
Thus, the claimed process steps ensure that claimed system and method does not claim any alleged judicial exception itself and is not a drafting effort designed to obtain a patent on the exception itself.
As such, Applicant respectfully requests that claims 1, 8, and 15, and all claims dependent thereon be deemed patent eligible.
Here the argument is directed to the specification rather than the claims themselves. However further detail in regards to the technical elements would be helpful in regards to 35 USC 101.
Step 2B Analysis
As shown above, claims 1, 8, and 15 are patent-eligible. However, even assuming
arguendo that they do recite an abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (which Applicant does not concede), independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are patent eligible under Step 2B. The memo released by the USPTO on April 19, 2018 regarding the Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. decision ("Berkheimer memo") states that "an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry," which "must be based upon a factual determination." Specifically, this factual determination must be based on one of the following: (1) "[a] citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional-11-
element(s)," (2) "[a] citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)," (3) "[a] citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)," or (4) "[a] statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)." Berkheimer memo, p. 3-4.
The Office Action asserts that "[t]he claims do not include additional elements to amount to significantly more." (Office Action p. 4). First, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do recite "additional elements." For example, claim 1 recites "a memory location of a customer database associated with a customer account associated with the customer identifier."
Additionally, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed computer-implemented
processes recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite limitations including at least: "send, to the computing device of the customer, an electronic message comprising a hyperlink," "receive a signal in response to the hyperlink being selected, the signal comprising the customer identifier and a network address associated with the computing device of the customer," "transmit to the computing device of the customer and display on the computing device of the customer the one or more disclosure documents, based on the network address and in response to the hyperlink being selected," and "create and store an audit trail in a memory location of a customer database associated with a customer account associated with the customer identifier, wherein the audit trail includes a first confirmation that the customer consented to receive the one or more disclosure documents in electronic format and a second confirmation that the customer was provided access to the one or more disclosure documents based on the signal including the customer identifier." (Emphasis added). Applicant respectfully submits that these limitations, at least in combination, recite more than mere collection and receipt of data. In particular, the claims recite a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components that advantageously enables a specific interaction between the claimed system, the customer computing device, and the customer database where: (1) a signal is received in response to hyperlink selection that includes both a customer identifier and a network-12-
address; (2) the disclosure documents are securely transmitted based on the network address; and
(3) an audit trail documenting electronic consent for transmission of the disclosure documents is created based on the signal including the customer identifier.
The amended claims are allowable for similar reasons as claim 2 of Example 35 of the USPTO's January 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. In Example 35, claim 2 was directed to a method of conducting a secure ATM transaction that was found eligible because the combination of steps (including the ATM providing a random code, the mobile communication device generating an encrypted image in response to the random code, the ATM decrypting and analyzing the code data, and determining whether the transaction should proceed based on the analysis) operated in a non-conventional and non-generic way to ensure secure identity verification. The USPTO guidance explained that these steps did not represent merely gathering data for comparison or security purposes, but instead set up a sequence of events that addressed unique problems associated with bank cards and ATMs. Like in BASCOM, the claimed combination presented a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea.
Similarly, in the present application, the combination of steps recited in amended claims 1, 8, and 15, including, for example, sending an electronic message comprising a hyperlink, receiving a signal in response to the hyperlink being selected (the signal comprising the customer identifier and a network address associated with the computing device of the customer), transmitting the disclosure documents based on the network address and in response to the hyperlink being selected, and creating and storing an audit trail based on the signal including the customer identifier, operates in a non-conventional and non-generic way to ensure that the customer's consent and access to disclosure documents is securely verified and documented. This combination of steps does not represent merely gathering data for transmission purposes, but instead sets up a specific sequence of events that addresses unique problems associated with electronic disclosure delivery, such as verifying that a specific customer has consented to and accessed the disclosure documents from a particular network address. Like the eligible claim in Example 35, the claimed combination here presents a specific, discrete implementation that provides meaningful limitations beyond simply performing the abstract concept on a computer.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and the claims depending therefrom are patent eligible under Step 2B as well.
Here mimicking example 35 would be a good idea. However, the inventive concept of example 35 is identity verification. If applicant were to further make the claims look like the example then that argument would be more compelling.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite:
1. A provider computing system, configured to:
receive, via a computing device of a customer, a request to receive access to one or more disclosure documents associated
with a financial account in electronic format, the request
comprising a customer identifier;
send, to the computing device of the customer via a unique messaging address associated with the customer, an electronic
consent request to receive the one or more disclosure documents in
electronic format;
receive a response from the computing device of the customer accepting the electronic consent request;
send, to the computing device of the customer, an electronic message comprising a hyperlink;
receive a signal in response to the hyperlink being selected, the signal comprising the customer identifier and a network
address associated with the computing device of the customer;
transmit to the computing device of the customer and display on the computing device of the customer the one or more
disclosure documents, based on the network address and in
response to the hyperlink being selected; and
create and store an audit trail in a memory location of a customer database associated with a customer account associated
with the customer identifier, wherein the audit trail includes a first
confirmation that the customer consented to receive the one or
more disclosure documents in electronic format and a second
confirmation that the customer was provided access to the one or
more disclosure documents based on the signal including the
customer identifier.
Claims 8 and 15 have been amended to recite similar features.
The Office Action acknowledges that Johnson and Brown do not explicitly disclose "send to the computing device of the customer an electronic message comprising a hyperlink" and "in response to the hyperlink being selected..." The Office Action cites Gropper for teaching these features.
In contrast with amended claim 1, however, Gropper does not disclose, teach, or suggest "send[ing], to the computing device of the customer, an electronic message comprising a hyperlink," "receiv[ing] a signal in response to the hyperlink being selected, the signal comprising the customer identifier and a network address associated with the computing device of the customer," "transmit[ting] to the computing device of the customer and display[ing] on the computing device of the customer the one or more disclosure documents, based on the network address and in response to the hyperlink being selected," and "creat[ing] and stor[ing] an audit trail in a memory location of a customer database associated with a customer account associated with the customer identifier, wherein the audit trail includes a first confirmation that the customer consented to receive the one or more disclosure documents in electronic format and a second confirmation that the customer was provided access to the one or more disclosure documents based on the signal including the customer identifier." (Emphasis added). Rather, Gropper is silent with respect to these features. Thus, Gropper does not disclose these feature of amended claim 1.
As acknowledged by the Office Action, Johnson and Brown do not disclose sending a
"hyperlink." Therefore, Johnson and Brown also do not disclose, teach, or suggest the features of amended claim 1 including at least: "receiv[ing] a signal in response to the hyperlink being selected, the signal comprising the customer identifier and a network address associated with the computing device of the customer," "transmit[ting] to the computing device of the customer and display[ing] on the computing device of the customer the one or more disclosure documents, based on the network address and in response to the hyperlink being selected," and "creat[ing] and stor[ing] an audit trail in a memory location of a customer database associated with a
customer account associated with the customer identifier, wherein the audit trail includes a first confirmation that the customer consented to receive the one or more disclosure documents in electronic format and a second confirmation that the customer was provided access to the one or more disclosure documents based on the signal including the customer identifier."
In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is patentable over the cited references. Claims 8 and 15 recite similar features and are patentable for at least the same reasons.
Here while the applicant arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The examiner notes that Gropper is cited for the hyperlink whereas Johnson is cited for the audit trail. The rejection relies on the combination of references.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 depend from claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, and are patentable for at least the same reasons. Therefore, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are respectfully requested.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Analytical Study on Internet Banking System ARXIV, 2010
Evaluation Framework for Personal Health Records: Microsoft HealthVault Vs. Google Health, IEEE 2010
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 BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights