DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments filed on 09/29/2025.
Claims 2, 5, 13, and 16 have been cancelled.
Claim 20 is newly added.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-12, 14-15, 17-20 have been examined and are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 09/29/2025, has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 11, 12, and 19 have been amended.
Claim Objections
The claim objections of claims 2 and 5 have been withdrawn pursuant Applicant’s cancellation of claims 2 and 5. The rest of the claim objections from the prior Office Action have been maintained.
Priority
This patent Application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/392,685 filed 07/27/2022. This benefit has been received and acknowledged and therefore, the instant claims receive the effective filing date of 07/27/2022.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-11 objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1 reads “generating, with at least one processor, … incrementally decreasing, with at least one processor, … receiving, with at least one processor, … fulfilling, with at least one processor” but should likely read “generating, with the at least one processor, … incrementally decreasing, with the at least one processor, … receiving, with the at least one processor, … fulfilling, with the at least one processor”
-Claim 1 further reads “pausing, with at least one processor, … generating, with at least one processor, … activating, with at least one processor” but should likely read “pausing, with the at least one processor, … generating, with the at least one processor, … activating, with the at least one processor”
-Claim 1 further reads “reactivating, with at least one processor” but should likely read “reactivating, with the at least one processor”
Claims 3-4, and 6-11 inherit the deficiencies noted in claim 1, respectfully, and are therefore objected to on the same basis.
-Claim 3 reads “terminating, with at least one processor” but should likely read “terminating, with the at least one processor”
-Claim 4 reads “receiving, with at least one processor, … fulfilling, with at least one processor” but should likely read “receiving, with the at least one processor, … fulfilling, with the at least one processor”
Claims 7 and 9 inherit the deficiencies noted in claim 4, respectfully, and are therefore objected to on the same basis.
-Claim 9 reads “generating, with at least one processor … transmitting, with at least one processor” but should likely read “generating, with the at least one processor … transmitting, with the at least one processor”
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-12, 14-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories. All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A in MPEP 2106.04, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 1 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
-receiving, with at least one processor, product data associated with a product, the product data comprising a quantity of the product equal to an initial quantity value and a price of the product equal to an initial price value;
-generating, with at least one processor, a live auction event associated with the product, the live auction event comprising an auction identifier, a countdown timer, and the product data;
-displaying, with at least one processor, a live auction event [display] graphical user interface based on the live auction event, the live auction event [display] graphical user interface comprising a visual display of the countdown timer and one or more selectable options configured to input bid order requests;
-incrementally decreasing, with at least one processor, the price of the product based on the countdown timer, wherein the price of the product is equal to a subsequent price value of a plurality of subsequent price values, wherein each subsequent price value of the plurality of subsequent price values is less than the initial price value;
-receiving, with at least one processor, a bid order request through the live auction event [display] graphical user interface, the bid order request comprising bid data associated with a bid order for the product, the bid data comprising a bid price, a bid quantity, and a bid identifier, wherein the bid identifier corresponds to a user account of a user;
-fulfilling, with at least one processor, the bid order request based on the bid data of the bid order request, wherein the bid price matches at least one subsequent price value of the plurality of subsequent price values of the price of the product, and wherein the quantity of the product is decreased to a subsequent quantity value, the subsequent quantity value equal to the initial quantity value minus the bid quantity;
-in response to fulfilling the bid order request, pausing, with at least one processor, the countdown timer associated with the live auction event such that the price of the product does not incrementally decrease and the price of the product is equal to the bid price, wherein the visual display of the countdown timer changes in appearance;
-generating, with at least one processor, a temporary countdown timer associated with the at least one subsequent price value and the bid price comprising a time duration;
-in response to pausing the countdown timer, displaying, on the live auction event [display] graphical user interface, a visual representation of the temporary countdown timer;
-activating, with at least one processor, the temporary countdown timer associated with the at least one subsequent price value and the bid price, wherein the price of the product does not incrementally decrease and the price of the product is equal to the bid price while the temporary countdown timer is active; and
-in response to the time duration of the temporary countdown timer lapsing, reactivating, with at least one processor, the countdown timer associated with the live auction event such that the price of the product resumes incrementally decreasing
The above limitations recite the concept of facilitating a live auction event that incrementally decreases the price of a product and fulfilling a bid order request. The above limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitations of receiving, with at least one processor, product data associated with a product, the product data comprising a quantity of the product equal to an initial quantity value and a price of the product equal to an initial price value; generating, with at least one processor, a live auction event associated with the product, the live auction event comprising an auction identifier, a countdown timer, and the product data; displaying, with at least one processor, a live auction event [display] graphical user interface based on the live auction event, the live auction event [display] graphical user interface comprising a visual display of the countdown timer and one or more selectable options configured to input bid order requests; incrementally decreasing, with at least one processor, the price of the product based on the countdown timer, wherein the price of the product is equal to a subsequent price value of a plurality of subsequent price values, wherein each subsequent price value of the plurality of subsequent price values is less than the initial price value; receiving, with at least one processor, a bid order request through the live auction event [display] graphical user interface, the bid order request comprising bid data associated with a bid order for the product, the bid data comprising a bid price, a bid quantity, and a bid identifier, wherein the bid identifier corresponds to a user account of a user; fulfilling, with at least one processor, the bid order request based on the bid data of the bid order request, wherein the bid price matches at least one subsequent price value of the plurality of subsequent price values of the price of the product, and wherein the quantity of the product is decreased to a subsequent quantity value, the subsequent quantity value equal to the initial quantity value minus the bid quantity; in response to fulfilling the bid order request, pausing, with at least one processor, the countdown timer associated with the live auction event such that the price of the product does not incrementally decrease and the price of the product is equal to the bid price, wherein the visual display of the countdown timer changes in appearance; generating, with at least one processor, a temporary countdown timer associated with the at least one subsequent price value and the bid price comprising a time duration; in response to pausing the countdown timer, displaying, on the live auction event [display] graphical user interface, a visual representation of the temporary countdown timer; activating, with at least one processor, the temporary countdown timer associated with the at least one subsequent price value and the bid price, wherein the price of the product does not incrementally decrease and the price of the product is equal to the bid price while the temporary countdown timer is active; and in response to the time duration of the temporary countdown timer lapsing, reactivating, with at least one processor, the countdown timer associated with the live auction event such that the price of the product resumes incrementally decreasing are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that the receiving of product data is with at least one processor, that the generating of the live auction is with at least one processor, that the displaying is with at least one processor, that the live auction event display is a live auction event graphical user interface, that the incrementally decreasing of the price is with at least one processor, that the receiving of the bid order is with at least one processor, that the fulfilling is with at least one processor, that the pausing is with at least one processor, that the generating of the temporary countdown timer is with at least one processor, that the activating is with at least one processor, and that the reactivating is with at least one processor, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “at least one processor” and “live auction event graphical user interface” language, “receiving,” “generating,” “displaying,” “incrementally decreasing,” “receiving,” “fulfilling,” “pausing,” “generating,” “displaying,” “activating,” and “reactivating” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
-receiving, with at least one processor, product data associated with a product, the product data comprising a quantity of the product equal to an initial quantity value and a price of the product equal to an initial price value;
-generating, with at least one processor, a live auction event associated with the product, the live auction event comprising an auction identifier, a countdown timer, and the product data;
-displaying, with at least one processor, a live auction event graphical user interface based on the live auction event, the live auction event graphical user interface comprising a visual display of the countdown timer and one or more selectable options configured to input bid order requests;
-incrementally decreasing, with at least one processor, the price of the product based on the countdown timer, wherein the price of the product is equal to a subsequent price value of a plurality of subsequent price values, wherein each subsequent price value of the plurality of subsequent price values is less than the initial price value;
-receiving, with at least one processor, a bid order request through the live auction event graphical user interface, the bid order request comprising bid data associated with a bid order for the product, the bid data comprising a bid price, a bid quantity, and a bid identifier, wherein the bid identifier corresponds to a user account of a user;
-fulfilling, with at least one processor, the bid order request based on the bid data of the bid order request, wherein the bid price matches at least one subsequent price value of the plurality of subsequent price values of the price of the product, and wherein the quantity of the product is decreased to a subsequent quantity value, the subsequent quantity value equal to the initial quantity value minus the bid quantity;
-in response to fulfilling the bid order request, pausing, with at least one processor, the countdown timer associated with the live auction event such that the price of the product does not incrementally decrease and the price of the product is equal to the bid price, wherein the visual display of the countdown timer changes in appearance;
-generating, with at least one processor, a temporary countdown timer associated with the at least one subsequent price value and the bid price comprising a time duration;
-in response to pausing the countdown timer, displaying, on the live auction event graphical user interface, a visual representation of the temporary countdown timer;
-activating, with at least one processor, the temporary countdown timer associated with the at least one subsequent price value and the bid price, wherein the price of the product does not incrementally decrease and the price of the product is equal to the bid price while the temporary countdown timer is active; and
-in response to the time duration of the temporary countdown timer lapsing, reactivating, with at least one processor, the countdown timer associated with the live auction event such that the price of the product resumes incrementally decreasing
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application 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 mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) as supported by paragraph [0088] of Applicant’s specification – “For example, processor 904 may include a processor (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), an accelerated processing unit (APU), etc.), a microprocessor, a digital signal processor (DSP), and/or any processing component (e.g., a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), etc.) that can be programmed to perform a function.” Specifically, the additional elements of the method being a computer-implemented method, at least one processor, and a live auction event graphical user interface are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of receiving data, generating data, displaying data, incrementally decreasing data, fulfilling data, pausing data, activating data, and reactivating data) such that they amount do no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). For example, stating that the method is computer-implemented only generally links the commercial interactions to a computer environment. Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Claim 12 is a system reciting similar functions as claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 12 recites the additional element of at least one processor and a live auction event graphical user interface, however, claim 12 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 1 indicated above.
Claim 19 is a computer program product reciting similar functions as claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 19 recites the additional element of at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium, program instructions, a live auction event graphical user interface, and at least one processor, however, claim 19 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 1 indicated above.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Therefore, claims 12 and 19 do not provide an inventive concept and do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 3-4, 6-11, 14-15, 17-18, and 20, 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 3-4, 6-11, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite commercial interactions. Dependent claims 7-8 and 10, do not recite any farther additional elements, and as such are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons discussed above. Dependent claims 3-4, 6, 9, 11, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 recite the additional elements of at least one processor, a web-based user interface, the live auction event graphical user interface, and an auction preview interface, but similar to the analysis under prong two of Step 2A these additional elements are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, under prong two of Step 2A, claims 3-4, 6-11, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 3-4, 6-11, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claims 1, 12 and 19, dependent claims 3-4, 6-11, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 when analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e. facilitating a live auction event that incrementally decreases the price of a product and fulfilling a bid order request) being applied on a general-purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
In the present application, claims 1, 3-4, 6-12, 14-15, 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 USC § 101 set forth in this Office action. The following is the Examiner's statement of reasons of allowance:
Regarding 35 U.S.C. §103, upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the applicant’s invention. Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art as follows:
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-12, 14-15, 17-20 are allowable over 35 U.S.C. §103 as follows:
The most relevant prior art made of record includes Soldati et al. (US 2015/0379625 A1), Ciulla et al (US 2014/0372243 A1), Bhattacharya et al. (US 11,481,833 B1), and newly cited Howell et al. (US 2018/0308139 A1). Soldati teaches receiving, with at least one processor, product data associated with a product, the product data comprising a quantity of the product equal to an initial quantity value and a price of the product equal to an initial price value (Soldati, see at least: [0044], [0045] and [0035]); generating, with at least one processor, a live auction event associated with the product, the live auction event comprising an auction identifier, a countdown timer, and the product data (Soldati, see at least: [0053], [0035], [0049] and Fig. 5); displaying, with at least one processor, a live auction event graphical user interface based on the live auction event, the live auction event graphical user interface comprising a visual display of the countdown timer and one or more selectable options configured to input bid order requests (Soldati, see at least: [0049], [0058], and Fig. 5); incrementally decreasing, with at least one processor, the price of the product based on the countdown timer, wherein the price of the product is equal to a subsequent price value of a plurality of subsequent price values, wherein each subsequent price value of the plurality of subsequent price values is less than the initial price value (Soldati, see at least: [0049], [0052], and [0035]); receiving, with at least one processor, a bid order request through the live auction event graphical user interface, the bid order request comprising bid data associated with a bid order for the product, the bid data comprising a bid price, a bid quantity, and a bid identifier, wherein the bid identifier corresponds to a user account of a user (Soldati, see at least: [0058], [0086], and [0035]); fulfilling, with at least one processor, the bid order request based on the bid data of the bid order request, wherein the bid price matches at least one subsequent price value of the plurality of subsequent price values of the price of the product, and wherein the quantity of the product is decreased to a subsequent quantity value, the subsequent quantity value equal to the initial quantity value minus the bid quantity (Soldati, see at least: [0083], [0086], [0071], and [0035]); in response to [determining the winner of the bid order request], pausing, with at least one processor, the countdown timer associated with the live auction event; generating, with at least one processor, a temporary timer associated with the at least one subsequent price value and the bid price comprising a time duration (Soldati, see at least: [0083]); activating, with at least one processor, the temporary timer associated with the at least one subsequent price value and the bid price, wherein the price of the product does not incrementally decrease and the price of the product is equal to the bid price while the temporary timer is active (Soldati, see at least: [0083] and [0076]); and the temporary timer lapsing and the countdown timer associated with the live auction event.
Soldati is deficient in a number of ways. As written, the claims require in response to fulfilling the bid order request, pausing, with at least one processor, the countdown timer associated with the live auction event such that the price of the product does not incrementally decrease and the price of the product is equal to the bid price, wherein the visual display of the countdown timer changes in appearance; the temporary timer being a temporary countdown timer; in response to pausing the countdown timer, displaying, on the live auction event graphical user interface, a visual representation of the temporary countdown timer; in response to the time duration of the temporary countdown timer lapsing, reactivating, with at least one processor, the countdown timer associated with the live auction event such that the price of the product resumes incrementally decreasing.
Regarding Ciulla, Ciulla teaches in response to fulfilling the bid order request, pausing, with at least one processor, the countdown timer associated with the live auction event such that the price of the product does not incrementally decrease and the price of the product is equal to the bid price (Ciulla, see at least: [0081] and [0046]); and, in response to the time duration of the temporary timer lapsing, reactivating, with at least one processor, the countdown timer associated with the live auction event such that the price of the product resumes, incrementally decreasing (Ciulla, see at least: [0081] and [0036]).
Though disclosing these features, Ciulla does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above.
Regarding Bhattacharya, Bhattacharya teaches the temporary timer being a temporary countdown timer (Bhattacharya, see at least: Col. 31 Ln. 18-21).
Though disclosing these features, Bhattacharya does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above.
Regarding Howell, Howell teaches that the visual display of the countdown timer changes in appearance (Howell, see at least: [0119], [0120], and FIGS. 7-10); and in response to [stopping] the countdown timer, displaying, on the live auction event graphical user interface, a visual representation of the temporary countdown timer (Howell, see at least: [0119], [0120], and FIGS. 7-10).
Though disclosing these features, Howell does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above.
Ultimately, the particular combination of limitations as claimed, is not anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of Soldati, Ciulla, Bhattacharya, and Howell, and the totality of the prior art. While certain references may disclose more general concepts and parts of the claim, the prior art available does not specifically disclose the particular combination of these limitations.
Soldati, Ciulla, Bhattacharya, and Howell, however, do not teach or suggest, alone or in combination the claimed invention. Examiner emphasizes that the prior art/additional art would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant’s disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e. hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Cited NPL reference U (cited 01/02/2026 on PTO-892) teaches gradually lowering a price of a bid over a fixed time period, but does not teach or suggest the recited limitations.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would be a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by Examiner that, in light of the above and further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant argues that, in accordance with the Examiner's suggestions, the claims have been amended to recite more detail about the countdown timer, temporary timer, and graphical user interface (Remarks, pages 10-11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely reciting what is displayed on a GUI and that “the visual display of the countdown timer changes in appearance” without reciting technical details of how the timer changes and what triggers these changes (e.g. is there a selection of an interface element that causes this change? Is something different displayed on the interfaces of the bidders that have not submitted the request in comparison to the interface of the bidder who submitted a request?) fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the additional elements recited in the amended claims fail to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Hogendoorn et al. (US 2002/0007339 A1) teaches a descending bid auction system.
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 ARIELLE E WEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maria-Teresa (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.
/ARIELLE E WEINER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689