DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action per the Response to the Election/Restriction Requirement received on 15 April 2026. Claims 1-9 have been cancelled. Claims 10-20 remain pending in this application. Claims 10-20 have been examined on their merits.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-9 have been cancelled. An election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 15 April 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14-17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, includes an abbreviation of “CNC” in lines 1, 13, and 28. There is no reference to the definition of the abbreviation in the claim. All abbreviations should be spelled out in the claim to avoid any question of ambiguity. For the purpose of examination, the limitation of “CNC” has been interpreted as computer numerical control.
Claim 1 recites “a machining parameter recommendation controller” in line 9 and claims 14-17 and 20 recite “the controller” in lines 1. Claims 14-17 and 20 recite two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims the same term should be used for the same limitation. Suggested claim language: “the machining parameter recommendation controller” claims 14-17 and 20.
Claim 1 recites “a machining information database storing machining information for various machine and material combinations” in lines 4-5 and claim 17 recites “the machining parameter recommendation request includes machining information relating to coolant, type of cut, current cutting parameters, cut time, parts per tool/insert edge, machine rate, tool/insert edge cost, tool change time, process objective, constraints, or any combination thereof” in lines 1-4. The claims recite the same term (i.e. “machining information”) for different limitations. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims, different terms should be used for the disparate limitations.
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 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 10:
At step 1, the claim recites “(a) machining parameter recommendation system” comprising of concrete device (i.e. a machining information database, a user interface, a machining parameter recommendation controller, and a CNC machine), and therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one the claim recites “… filter the received machining information based on the user machining parameter recommendation request to a set of filtered machining information related to the machine and material identified in the machining parameter recommendation request”; “detect outliers in the filtered machining information and remove the detected outliers to obtain corrected machining information”; “cluster and aggregate the corrected machining information in accordance with the machining parameter recommendation request”; and “determine the set of recommended machining parameters based on the clustered and aggregated machining information”.
The limitation of “… filter the received machining information based on the user machining parameter recommendation request to a set of filtered machining information related to the machine and material identified in the machining parameter recommendation request”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “filter(ing)” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to remove undesired/unwanted data to obtain a desired group of data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2):
The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “detect outliers in the filtered machining information and remove the detected outliers to obtain corrected machining information” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0069525 A1: pg. 5, par. [0073]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “cluster and aggregate the corrected machining information in accordance with the machining parameter recommendation request” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0069525 A1: pg. 4, par. [0053]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “determine the set of recommended machining parameters based on the clustered and aggregated machining information” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0069525 A1: pg. 4, par. [0055]-[0058]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a CNC machine”; “a machining information database storing machining information for various machine and material combinations”; “a user interface configured to receive a machining parameter recommendation request from a user, wherein the machining parameter recommendation request identifies a machine and a material”; “a machining parameter recommendation controller configured to receive the machining parameter recommendation request from the user interface, receive machining information from the machining information database related to the machine and the material identified in the machining parameter recommendation request, determine a set of recommended machining parameters, and communicate the set of recommended machining parameters to the CNC machine, wherein the machining parameter recommendation controller is configured to determine the set of recommended machining parameters according to instructions stored in memory that when executed cause the machining parameter recommendation controller …”; “… communicate, to the user interface, the set of recommended machining parameters”; and “control the CNC machine based on the clustered and aggregated machining information”.
The limitations of “a machining information database”; “a user interface”; “a machining parameter recommendation controller”; and “the machining parameter recommendation controller is configured to determine the set of recommended machining parameters according to instructions stored in memory that when executed cause the machining parameter recommendation controller …” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “a CNC machine” is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “… storing machining information for various machine and material combinations”; “… receive a machining parameter recommendation request from a user, wherein the machining parameter recommendation request identifies a machine and a material”; “… receive the machining parameter recommendation request …”; and “… receive machining information from the machining information database related to the machine and the material identified in the machining parameter recommendation request …” represent mere data gathering. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality and so generically they represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “… communicate the set of recommended machining parameters to the CNC machine …” and “… communicate, to the user interface, the set of recommended machining parameters” represent mere data output of information. The limitations of “communicate” are recited at a high level of generally and so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “control the CNC machine based on the clustered and aggregated machining information” is a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “a machining information database”; “a user interface”, “a machining parameter recommendation controller”, and “the machining parameter recommendation controller is configured to determine the set of recommended machining parameters according to instructions stored in memory that when executed cause the machining parameter recommendation controller …” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional limitation of “a CNC machine” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “… storing machining information for various machine and material combinations”; “… receive a machining parameter recommendation request from a user, wherein the machining parameter recommendation request identifies a machine and a material”; “… receive the machining parameter recommendation request …”; and “… receive machining information from the machining information database related to the machine and the material identified in the machining parameter recommendation request …”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “… communicate the set of recommended machining parameters to the CNC machine …” and “… communicate, to the user interface, the set of recommended machining parameters” represent mere data output of information (i.e. data transmission). Further, the courts have found limitations directed to transmitting data, recited a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
The limitation of “control the CNC machine based on the clustered and aggregated machining information” represents an equivalent recitation of the phrase “apply it”, wherein the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Claim 11:
The limitation of “a set of constraints” in claim 11 further details the limitation of “a machining parameter recommendation request” in claim 10 and the limitation of “… based on both the clustered and aggregated machining information and the set of constraints” in claim 11 further details the limitation of “determine the set of recommended machining parameters …” in claim 10; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 10.
Claim 12:
The limitation of “at least one of a preferred tool supplier and a number of recommendations to be provided by the machining parameter recommendation system” in claim 12 further details the limitation of “the machining parameter recommendation request includes a set of constraints” in claim 11; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 11.
Claim 13:
At step 2A, prong one the claim recites “determine the set of filtered machining information is below a threshold amount … ” and “… in response to the determination; … augment the machining information by adjusting the additional machining information based on a compensation factor”.
The limitation of “determine the set of filtered machining information is below a threshold amount”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determin(ing)” in the context of the claim encompasses a comparison of two pieces of data to ascertain information on a piece of data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… augment the machining information based on the additional machining information” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0069525 A1: pgs. 4-5, par. [0060]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the machining parameter recommendation controller” and “receive additional machining information from the machining information database unrelated to at least one of the machine or material identified in the machining parameter recommendation request”.
The limitation of “the machining parameter recommendation controller” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “receive additional machining information from the machining information database unrelated to at least one of the machine or material identified in the machining parameter recommendation request” represents mere data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and so generically it represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “the machining parameter recommendation controller”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “receive additional machining information from the machining information database unrelated to at least one of the machine or material identified in the machining parameter recommendation request”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14:
At step 2A, prong one the claim recites “… augment the machining information by adjusting the additional machining information based on a compensation factor”.
The limitation of “… augment the machining information by adjusting the additional machining information based on a compensation factor” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0069525 A1: pgs. 4-5, par. [0060]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the controller”.
The limitation of “the controller” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “the controller”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15:
At step 2A, prong one the claim recites “… cluster and aggregate with one or more of K-means, mean-shift clustering, or expectation-maximization (EM) clustering using Gaussian mixture models”.
The limitation of “… cluster and aggregate with one or more of K-means, mean-shift clustering, or expectation-maximization (EM) clustering using Gaussian mixture models” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0069525 A1: pg. 4, par. [0053]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the controller”.
The limitation of “the controller” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “the controller”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16:
At step 2A, prong one the claim recites “… detect outliers using machine learning methods including one or more of elliptic envelope, isolation forest, or local outlier factor”.
The limitation of “… detect outliers using machine learning methods including one or more of elliptic envelope, isolation forest, or local outlier factor” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0069525 A1: pg. 5, par. [0073]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the controller”.
The limitation of “the controller” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “the controller”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17:
The limitation of “machining information relating to coolant, type of cut, current cutting parameters, cut time, parts per tool/insert edge, machine rate, tool/insert edge cost, tool change time, process objective, constraints, or any combination thereof” in claim 17 further details the limitation of “machining information” in claim 10; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 10.
Claim 18:
The limitation of “a recommendation of near-optimal starting machining parameters based on the machining parameter recommendation request” in claim 18 further details the limitation of “the set of recommended machining parameters” in claim 10; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 10.
Claim 19:
The limitation of “a recommendation of machining parameters to meet a machining objective for the user machining information” in claim 19 further details the limitation of “the set of recommended machining parameters” in claim 10; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 10.
Claim 20:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the controller is configured obtain a baseline cost per part”.
The limitation of “the controller” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… obtain a baseline cost per part” represents mere data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and so generically it represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “the controller”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… obtain a baseline cost per part”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to machining/production systems/methods.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0129636 A1 discloses identifying a data file including parameters for causing a three-dimensional printer to print a three-dimensional model of an object, identifying a total time or total cost threshold for printing the three-dimensional model of the object on the three-dimensional printer, obtaining a unit time or unit cost for one or more resources required for printing, modifying one or more of the parameters of the data file so that the three-dimensional model of the object can be printed without exceeding the time or cost threshold, and causing the three-dimensional printer to print the three-dimensional model of the object using the modified parameters.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0308058 A1 discloses optimizing productivity of a machining process of at least one CNC (Computer Numerical Control) machine with regard to a given NC (Numerical Control) program.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0322544 A1 discloses a method for generating a machining program of a plunge mulling machine tool.
U.S. Patent No. 7,625,198 B2 discloses an article fabrication system having a plurality of material deposition tools containing one or more materials useful in fabricating an article, and a material deposition device having a tool interface for receiving one of the material deposition tools
U.S. Patent No. 9,658,613 B2 discloses a facility for automated modelling of the cutting process for a particular material to be cut by a beam cutting tool, such as a waterjet cutting system, from empirical data to predict aspects of a waterjet's effect on a workpiece across a range of material thicknesses, across a range of cutting geometries, and across a range of cutting quality levels, all of which may be broader than, and independent of the actual requirements for a target workpiece.
U.S. Patent No. 12,111,638 B2 discloses an adaptive production system that provides output information for altering at least one parameter used by at least one of a design apparatus and an assembly apparatus in a manufacture of a product
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights