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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 6, 8, 14, 15, and 19 are amended. Claims 3-5, 10-12, and 16-18 are canceled. Claims 21-29 are added as new claims. Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-15, and 19-29 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Claims Recite A Judicial Exception Under Step 2A Prong One
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception, but instead an improvement in the functioning of a computer itself. Examiner disagrees. Step 2A Prong One of the Alice/Mayo test evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. The Federal Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Here in the applicant’s invention, it is clear from the specification (including the claim language) that the independent claims focus on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. The specification discloses in [0001] an improved method and system that saves time and provides an agent flexibility by automatically translating a lead from the agent's customer records management system to the same lead on a lead provider site without requiring additional windows or tabs to be opened in a web browser application. The specification also describes the issues with “car dealers, realtors, and other sales agents may have several windows or tabs open in a web browser application that refer to the same lead (e.g., an existing or potential customer) for a possible sales transaction from a customer records management system operated by the agent and a lead provider site. When pursuing multiple sales transactions, an agent may have many tabs open in the web browser application. Having too many windows or tabs open in a web browser application may consume a disproportionate amount of a processing resources, which may result in an overall degradation in a computer's performance and/or the agent's experience with a web browser application.” The invention is related to customer records management regarding the display of lead information or data, and recites claims that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, relationships; commercial interactions) as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving customer data and obtaining objects based on the data, selecting the customer object that best matches the customer data, linking to the lead object, transmitting a URL to the lead object, and the authentication procedures for access across platforms. The claims also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing obtaining customer objects based on the customer data, selecting the customer object that best matches the customer data, and obtaining a lead object based on customer lead identifier, and authentication procedures for access across platforms. The claims considered in light of the specification, indicate that their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.
Applicant’s argument that the amended claim architecture implements a specific computer security protocol from cross-platform API access, and that the security protocol improves computer functionality, is unpersuasive. The amended claim limitations are describing the steps of using a well-known authentication mechanism (the conventional OAuth 2.0 chaining) (see Krishnan 2023/0300135; “Delegation Patterns for OAuth 2.0 using Token Exchange”, Brady 2021; “The Little Book of OAuth 2.0 RFCs”, Parecki, 2022; “RFC 8693 OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange”; Jones, M., et. al., 2020). Applying a known authentication mechanism to a business process is not an improvement to computer functionality. The claims also do not present an improvement in technology (e.g., security protocols). The claims do not recite a new cryptographic technique, token structure, nor handshake. Instead, the claims use known protocols for their intended purpose related to securely retrieving and transmitting data across different platforms. Examiner also notes applicant’s attempt to shift the scope of the invention in their arguments to the invention being geared towards security protocols, when in actuality the claimed invention (and claim limitations) are geared towards agent flexibility by automatically translating a lead from the agent's customer records management system to the same lead on a lead provider site without requiring additional windows or tabs to be opened in a web browser application. The claims merely use OAuth’s authentication mechanism in retrieving and transmitting data that includes the lead data. This is further evidenced by the applicant’s specification severely lacking the technical details that would be required if the claimed invention as a technical improvement to security protocols or computer functionality. Examiner invites applicant to provide the details from the specification the use of the OAuth 2.0 authentication improves computer functionality, if applicant feels this assertion is in error.
At best, the alleged improvement is an improvement in the judicial exception itself such as the business process/steps that correspond to the judicial exception subgroupings as indicated in the Step 2A Prong One analysis. Technical improvements to computers or computer functionality focuses on enhancing the tools, software, or machinery, while business process improvement focuses on streamlining the steps, workflows, and methodologies people use to do their work. Applicant’s claims fall in the latter. As stated in the applicant’ specification, an improved method and system that saves time and provides an agent flexibility by automatically translating a lead from the agent's customer records management system to the same lead on a lead provider site without requiring additional windows or tabs to be opened in a web browser application, as also evidenced by the claims, is not an improvement in computers or technology. At best, the alleged improvement is an improvement in the judicial exception itself. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. "We have also held that improving a user's experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality. For example, in Trading Techs. I, we held patent ineligible claims directed to a computer-based method for facilitating the placement of a trader's order. Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. I). Although the claimed display purportedly 'assist[ed] traders in processing information more quickly,' we held that this purported improvement in user experience did not 'improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Id.; see also Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1381, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. II) (holding that claims 'focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly' did not constitute a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality)." Customedia Technologies v. Dish Network, 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Further, it is also important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement (see MPEP §2106.05(a)).
Lastly, examiner notes that the argument regarding an improvement to computer functionality is provided in a merely conclusory manner without any evidence showing how using then known OAuth 2.0 authentication mechanisms improve the functioning of a computer, or providing sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (MPEP §2106.04(d)(1)).
For the reasons set forth above, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
The Judicial Exception Is Not Integrated Into A Practical Application Under Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner disagrees.
The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: (see MPEP §2106.04(d))
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;
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use;
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a cloud server from a web browser extension within a web browser application, a front-end interface, API (including the API exchange platform), a first and second access token, exchange partner gateway, a customer object database, a lead object database, and pop-up window. The additional elements of the cloud server from a web browser extension within a web browser application, a front-end interface, API (including the API exchange platform), exchange partner gateway, a customer object database, a lead object database, and pop-up window, are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. The additional elements of the first and second access token amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (security protocols in customer records management (CRM)). Accordingly, in combination, 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant’s argument regarding the claimed invention addressed deficiencies of legacy systems are unpersuasive. The ability to quickly and effectively manage "too many windows or tabs open in a web browser," which reduce consumption of a disproportionate amount of processing resources is an argument in computing overhead. Computing overhead is merely a combination of excess computation time, usage, or memory required to perform the specific task, which further indicates that the alleged improvement is an improvement in the business process (being performed via computer) rather than an improvement in the actual computer itself. Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also MPEP §2106.05(f). Additionally, the argument in the process being time-consuming and susceptible to error and the applicant’s claimed invention improving this issue at best illustrates an improvement in user experience by implementing the judicial exception via computer. An improvement in user experience (consuming less time and reducing error in data) is not an improvement to computer functionality or technology, but at best an improvement in the business process or the end-users of the business process. "We have also held that improving a user's experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality. For example, in Trading Techs. I, we held patent ineligible claims directed to a computer-based method for facilitating the placement of a trader's order. Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. I). Although the claimed display purportedly 'assist[ed] traders in processing information more quickly,' we held that this purported improvement in user experience did not 'improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Id.; see also Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1381, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. II) (holding that claims 'focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly' did not constitute a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality)." Customedia Technologies v. Dish Network, 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Applicant states the alleged improvement in “reducing computer degradation” a merely conclusory way, without any evidence showing how the claims improve the functioning of a computer, or providing sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (MPEP §2106.04(d)(1)). Applicant’s claims are in no way similar to Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018). In Core Wireless, the claimed invention was directed to an improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application. The claimed invention indicated an improvement in computer-functionality. This is not the case for the applicant’s invention and claims. Applicant’s claim does not improve a computer functionality, but instead utilizes general computing functions web browser extensions and pop-up windows to display data for the convenience of the user experience. Again, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.” Applicant’s claims are also in no way similar to example 37. In example 37, the applicant’s invention addresses the issue of automatically arranging icons in a non-typical arrangement manually on a graphical user interface by moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI, specifically, closest to the “start” icon of the computer system, based on a determined amount of use. The amount of use of each icon is automatically determined by a processor that tracks the number of times each icon is selected or how much memory has been allocated to the individual processes associated with each icon over a period of time. The claim with the additional elements of receiving, via a GUI, a user selection to organize each icon based on the amount of use of each icon, a processor for performing the determining step, and automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application via the additional elements reciting a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. Applicant’s invention is in no way similar to that of example 37. Claim 1 does not describe or indicate an improved user interface, nor an improvement in computer functionality.. Applicant’s claim does not improve a user interface, but instead utilizes general computing functions web browser extensions and pop-up windows to display data. Applicant’s argument that the claims do not correspond to a mental process because the steps cannot be performed in the human mind and cannot be performed without a machine is also unpersuasive. The mental-steps inquiry is not “could a human do this at the same speed/precision.” It’s whether the claim limitation, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) is explicit that a claim can recite a mental process even though it’s performed with the assistance of a computer. The question is the underlying nature of the step, not whether a human could literally replicate the computer’s exact arithmetic or functionality that is unique to computer processing. A human can perform authentication mechanism, and the use of the OAuth mechanism (using access tokens and severs doing the processing/transmitting) does not take the claims out of the overall judicial exception grouping because the judicial exception is still set forth and described in the claims under Step 2A Prong One, even with limitations outside of the authenticating steps. The use of the computer and/or computer components amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, and the use of the tokens for the OAuth authentication amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use.
For the reasons set forth above, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
The Claims Do Not Include Additional Elements That Are Sufficient To Amount To Significantly More Than The Judicial Exception Under Step 2B
Applicant argues that the claims include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner disagrees.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant’s argument referencing Berkheimer is invalid in this case. The Office Action recited that the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. There was no mention of well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. At Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the Examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B. Examiner notes that this was also stated in the previous office action response, so it is unclear why the same argument is repeated. Examiner recommends applicant to review MPEP §2106.07(a) for understanding of when evidentiary requirements under Berkheimer is necessary.
Lastly, applicant’s claims are in no way similar to that of BASCOM. The “inventive concept” referred to by the applicant is not claimed as a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces as in BASCOM. The claimed invention in BASCOM utilized standard components (filters), but located the filter in a non-conventional and non-generic manner. This is not present in the applicant’s claimed invention. There is nothing non-conventional and non-generic about the claimed arrangement of the computer components nor functions performed by those components.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 18, filed 05/20/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
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, 2, 6-9, 13-15, and 19-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 22, 25, and 27 recite a method (i.e. process), claims 8, 9, 13, 14, 23, 26, and 28 recite non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. machine or article of manufacture), and claims 15, 19, 20, 21, 24, and 29 recite a system (i.e. machine). Therefore claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-15, and 19-29 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitations of receiving customer data extracted from a [front-end interface] displayed in an [active tab of the web browser application], wherein the customer data comprises a first name, a last name, an email address, and a phone number; authenticating with a first authorization service of an [application programming interface (API) exchange platform] using an application identifier and an application secret to obtain a [first access token], wherein the [first access token] authorizes the [cloud serve]r to invoke [APIs] hosted on the [API exchange platform]; authenticating with a second authorization service of an [exchange partner gateway] using the[ first access token] and a client subscription identifier to obtain a [second access token], wherein the [second access token] is conditioned on authentication by both the first authorization service and the second authorization service; obtaining one or more customer objects from a [customer object database] by invoking a first authenticated API call comprising the customer data, the [first access token], and [the second access token], wherein each of the one or more customer objects comprises a customer identifier; selecting the customer object that best matches the customer data; obtaining a customer lead identifier from the [customer object database] by invoking a second authenticated API call comprising the customer identifier of the selected customer object, the [first access token], and the [second access token]; obtaining based on the customer lead identifier, a lead object from a [lead object database]; generating a uniform resource locator to the lead object from the [lead object database]; and transmitting the uniform resource locator to the lead object to the [web browser extension] for display in a [pop-up window] of the web browser extension without opening an additional tab in the [web browser application]. The invention is related to customer records management regarding the display of lead information or data, and recites claims that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, relationships; commercial interactions) as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving customer data and obtaining objects based on the data, selecting the customer object that best matches the customer data, linking to the lead object, transmitting a URL to the lead object, and the authentication procedures for access across platforms. The claims also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing obtaining customer objects based on the customer data, selecting the customer object that best matches the customer data, and obtaining a lead object based on customer lead identifier, and authentication procedures for access across platforms. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: The features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a cloud server from a web browser extension within a web browser application, a front-end interface, API (including the API exchange platform), a first and second access token, exchange partner gateway, a customer object database, a lead object database, and pop-up window. The additional elements of the cloud server from a web browser extension within a web browser application, a front-end interface, API (including the API exchange platform), exchange partner gateway, a customer object database, a lead object database, and pop-up window, are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. The additional elements of the first and second access token amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (security protocols in customer records management (CRM)). Accordingly, in combination, 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 6, 13, and 19 recite the limitations of submitting a third request to a software-as-a-service (Saas) token service of the [API exchange platform] for a [Saas token], wherein the third request comprises a user identifier and a dealer identifier; and receiving, by the cloud server based on the third request, the [Saas token]. The limitations are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claims also recite the additional elements of the cloud server, the API exchange platform, and Saas token. The additional elements of the cloud server and API exchange platform amount to “apply it" or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Further, the Saas token amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22, 23, and 24 recite the limitations that prior to receiving the customer data, the operations further comprise determining whether a valid [agent credential token] is available on the agent workstation, and wherein the customer data is extracted only if the valid [agent credential token] is available. The limitations are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claims also recite the additional elements of a valid agent token. The additional element of the valid agent token amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible
Dependent claims 2, 7, 9, 14, 20, 21, and 25-29 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 2, 7, 9, 14, 20, 21, and 25-29 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-15, and 19-29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes Azoulay (2019/0340622) which discloses a system that provides a customer interaction system whereby a commercial establishment may interact with customer. The reference discloses many of the applicant’s alim limitations, but does not disclose the amended portions of the claim limitations. Another relevant reference includes Semlani (2018/0365333) which discloses a method for enhanced web browsing includes receiving, by an executable application associated with a web browser on a computer system, a user selection of a reference to a business entity included within contents of a web page being displayed by the web browser during a user browsing session. The executable application causes the web browser to display an object in response to the user selection of the reference to the business entity. The object includes information associated with the business entity retrieved from a third-party information source. The reference does not appear to disclose the amended limitations of the applicant’s claims. Regarding authentication, a relevant reference found includes Krishnan (2023/0300135) which discloses invoking the APIs of other apps/services, authentication and authorization mechanisms employed so that the client app can access resources on behalf of users in a secure and transparent way. The reference does not appear to explicitly disclose the use of authentication in the CRM environment. The claims appear to overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes the publication “An integrated help desk support for customer services over the World Wide Web — a case study” (Foo, et. al., 1999) which discloses a Web-based integrated system, the WebHotLine system, that possesses Web-based retrieval, online multilingual translation capability for service records, rule-based reasoning for direct intelligent fault diagnosis by customers or service engineers, different modes of video-conferencing for enhanced customer support and network security for secure data communication. The publication does not appear to disclose the detailed limitations of the applicant’s claims. The claims appear to overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights