DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to correspondence filed 2 February 2026 in regard to application no. 18/306,017. Claims 3-6, 11, 12, 20, 23, 25, 27 and 28 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 13-19, 21, 22, 24, 26 and 29-31 are pending, of which claims 16, 21, 22 and 26 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 13-15, 17-19, 24 and 29-31 are considered below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2 February 2026 has been entered.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 13-15, 17-19, 24 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1, from which the others depend, now require receiving a “deeplink transition (i) occurring at the mobile device and (ii) between the first application and the messaging application” from a messaging application of a mobile device. There is no support for the specifics of this limitation in the originally filed application and so it represents impermissible new matter. Further in regard to claim 31, there is no support in the originally filed application for the limitation that a response message is compatible with an operating system of a mobile device; this also represents impermissible new matter; further, the originally filed application gives no hint as to how a response or any other information is to be generated so as to ensure such compatibility.
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, 7-10, 13-15, 17-19, 24 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As the claims are each drawn to a non-transitory processor-readable medium (manufacture), they lie within a statutory category of invention.
As was explained previously, the characteristics of and steps performed by a mobile device are outside the scope of the invention and so are considered but given no patentable weight except insofar as such steps have an effect on the claimed server (that is, the server operating the processor which executes the instructions on the claimed medium) or its own process.
Considering the steps performed by the claimed server, the claim(s) recite(s) defining a tag, gathering data, sending a message, receiving a message from a user, and initiating a purchase or subscription in response. This recites advertising behavior, one of the "certain methods of organizing human activity" deemed abstract.
Further, in the absence of computers, these steps mimic those that can be performed by humans mentally and corresponding e.g. via the post. Before computers, it was quite routine to embed a tag in a magazine advertisement so that an advertiser, receiving an inquiry from a customer, would know which magazine and issue caused the response. If the customer responded, the advertiser could then, e.g., send additional information to the customer based on the request, which could include personalization (at minimum, addressing the correspondence personally to that particular customer) and, hopefully, drawing the customer in to make a purchase. None of this required any technology at all and, since it was routinely done, it could not have presented any practical difficulty.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer, discussed below, nothing is done by the server beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment of networked computers. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As the claims only manipulate data pertaining to user information, a tag, a promotion and the like, they do not improve the "functioning of a computer" or of "any other technology or technical field". See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea "with, or by use of a particular machine", MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a "transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing", MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such data, being intangible, are not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea "in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment", MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of algorithmic and technical detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim to patent eligibility.
The claim includes a medium storing code to be executed by a processor, and implicitly access to some kind of network. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality, and the specification is clear, ¶ 1025, that nothing more than a computer with a "general purpose processor", i.e. a generic computer, is required. It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating information and sharing information with persons and/or other devices. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim elements when considered as an ordered combination - a generic computer performing a chronological sequence of abstract steps - do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually.
The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 2, 10, 14 and 17 purport to limit the unclaimed mobile device and are therefore of no patentable significance. Claims 13 and 24 simply recite additional output; claims 7 and 8 consist entirely of nonfunctional printed matter, of no patentable significance and which in any case does nothing to make the invention less abstract. Claim 9 simply recites additional data gathering; claim 15 is simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated, claims 18 and 19 simply recite additional, abstract manipulation of data, and claims 30 and 31 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated.
The claims are not patent eligible. For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 - 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance", 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019, further revised October 2019)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamalainen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0123794) in view of LeBeau et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0164981).
In-line citations are to Hamalainen.
With regard to Claim 1:
Hamalainen teaches: At least one non-transitory processor-readable medium storing code configured to be executed by at least one processor of at least one server, the code comprising instructions [0061; "an image processing system including a computer-readable medium and one or more processors"] configured to cause the at least one server to:
define an integration tag configured to be embedded with content [0146; a "QR code" may be "embedded" within content] displayable via a first application of a mobile device, [0064; mobile devices are used; QR codes are displayable, as would have been known to one then of ordinary skill in the art] the integration tag defined to cause:
(1) the mobile device to display a promotional message via the first application [0002; the point of the invention is to provide a "method and apparatus for delivering an advertisement to a user" using a tag] when a predefined condition is met; [0005; messages could be determined based on a user location]
(2) the at least one server to receive user data in response to a user of the mobile device... via the first application, the user data including at least two of: an operating system identifier associated with an operating system of the mobile device, a mobile device identifier, a user device identifier, user viewing history, user location, user click/tap history, or impression data; [0016; "The user is tracked based on the user ID and a determined present location"; 0022; "A user selection of a product for purchase or rental is received"]
cause transmission of a response message to the mobile device… [0023; a mobile device user is provided with information in response to a request]
initiate at least one of a subscription or a purchase based on receiving the custom message. [0109; the system facilitates a purchase based on receiving such a message]
Hamalainen does not explicitly teach the user interacting with the promotional action via a first application, that what is defined is a deep-linking URI, to receive the user data in response to a user of the mobile device interacting with the promotional message via the first application, or receive, from a messaging application of the mobile device and after a deeplink transition (i) occurring at the mobile device and (ii) between the first application and the messaging application, a custom message, but that of which is patentably significant is known in the art.
LeBeau teaches a system for generating business insights using social networks [title] with which a user interacts using a mobile device. [abstract] It may "customize and send an advertisement to a particular user based on [] social- networking information and session information of the user." [0007] This may include sending "to the user's client" a "deep link" such as a "URL" to a "location in an application" that has "information pertaining to" a product of interest. [0076]
The information of the user may include "affinity" information based on the user's interaction with previously-provided content. [0093] The system may track the user's "interactions" with the advertisements, [0043] with which a user may interact using a "web browser". [0040] A user may subscribe to an information service. [0142] The system may send a deep link to a mobile device which causes a certain interaction. [0076] LeBeau and Hamalainen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for providing advertisements to consumers' devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of LeBeau with that of Hamalainen in order to send relevant information, as taught by LeBeau; [0007] further, it is simply a combination of known parts with predictable results, simply performing LeBeau's steps once initial information has been sent. Each part works independently of the other, and each works in combination identically to how it works when not combined, with no new and unexpected result inherent or disclosed.
As explained previously and above, the characteristics of and steps performed by a mobile device are outside the scope of the claimed invention, which is directed to a medium whose instructions cause a server to perform operations, and so are considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 7:
The non-transitory processor-medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions to cause the at least one server to initiate the at least one of the subscription or the purchase include instructions to cause the at least one server to initiate the subscription, [LeBeau, 0142 as cited above in regard to claim 1] and an entity that controls the at least one server does not charge a fee for the subscription.
That an "entity that controls the at least one server does not charge a fee for the subscription" limits at most the external, unclaimed entity and neither the claimed medium nor any computer executing its instructions, and so is considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 8:
The non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the custom message is associated with at least two parameters from the user data. [Sheet 3, Fig. 3; at least a user location and metadata are used]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed medium or its host computer, neither of which plays any role whatever in the claim. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 10:
The non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the first application is at least one of a website browser, an email application, a book reader application, or a mobile application. [0117; LeBeau, 0040 as cited above in regard to claim 1; in both references a web browser executes on a mobile device]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1. The application only impacts the operation of the mobile device, which is outside the scope of the claim; with respect to the claimed medium and the computer which executes its instructions, this is nonfunctional, descriptive language which imparts neither structure nor functionality to what is actually claimed and is therefore considered but given no patentable weight. Further, as the device is a mobile device, any application it executes reads on a mobile application. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 13:
The non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the code further comprises code to cause the at least one server to send a confirmation message to the messaging application in response to receiving the custom message. [0145; an "authorization response may include a confirmation"]
With regard to Claim 15:
The non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the user data includes the mobile device identifier, and the mobile device identifier includes at least one of a user agent field or a user phone number. [LeBeau, 0052; a user's "phone number" is among the data]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1. First, it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed medium or any computer executing the instructions stored thereon. Further, as the identifier only "includes" one of these items, it can include other data, and any further processing could be based entirely on the other data. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 17:
The non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 1, wherein:
the messaging application is a default messaging application pre-installed with the operating system of the mobile device; and
the user data includes the operating system identifier.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1. The first clause about the messaging application limits at most the unclaimed mobile device and not the claimed medium nor the computer executing its instructions and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The second clause about what the user data includes consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed medium or the computer executing its instructions and so is considered but given no patentable weight; further, as the user data only “includes” this datum, it can include other data, and any further processing can be based entirely on the other data.
With regard to Claim 18:
The non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 1, wherein:
the user data includes at least one of the mobile device identifier or the user identifier; [LeBeau, 0052; a user's "phone number" is among the data] and
the custom message is associated with the at least one of the mobile device identifier or the user identifier, [id.; the phone number is "contact information" used to send information to the user]
the code further comprising instructions configured to cause the at least one server to identify the mobile device after receiving the custom message based on the message body of the custom message and the at least one of the mobile device identifier or the user identifier. [L.eBeau, 0055; the user clicked on a link within an advertiser's site; any message is received “based on” its own content]
It would have been obvious to one then of ordinary skill in the art to combine these features of LeBeau with the combination established above as it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using this data of LeBeau in place of, or in addition to, the data of Hamalainen; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 24:
The non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the code further comprises code to cause the at least one server to send the integration tag to the mobile device. [0150; data are sent to mobile client devices; the content of that which is sent consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter, bearing no functional relation to the substrate and which is therefore considered but given no patentable weight]
With regard to Claim 30:
The non-transitory, processor-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the code further comprises instructions configured to cause the at least one server to generate the response message based on the user data. [0023; a mobile device user is provided with information in response to a request]
Claim(s) 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamalainen et al. in view of LeBeau et al. further in view of Celik et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0330332).
With regard to Claim 2:
The non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the predefined condition includes at least one of:
that the mobile device is not a desktop or laptop computer;
that the mobile device and/or a user of the mobile device is on a whitelist;
that the mobile device and/or a user of the mobile device is not on a blacklist; or
that the user and/or the mobile device are within a country from a predefined list of countries.
Hamalainen and LeBeau teach the medium of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach these conditions, and though they are of no patentable significance as explained below, they are known in the art. Celik teaches a customer feedback platform [title] that may include an identifier of a "mobile device" on a "blacklist" indicating that an operator "desires to prevent" that mobile device "from receiving offer messages", and may also restrict by "device type of the mobile device". [0005] This may be because the device "has mobile specifications that may be problematic to receive" specific campaigns. [0048] If the device is not blacklisted, "promotions are displayed" to a user of the device. [0056] Celik and Hamalainen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for presenting advertisements to user devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Celik with that of Hamalainen and LeBeau in order to prevent sending messages to devices that would make it problematic to receive or display them, as taught by Celik; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply making a determination based on the criterion of Celik instead of, or in addition to, those of Hamalainen; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1. Some embodiments consist entirely of limitations ascribed to an unclaimed, external device. All embodiments consist entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language with respect to the claimed substrate, disclosing at most human interpretation of data which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed medium or a computer executing the instructions stored thereon. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 14:
The non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the predefined condition is based on at least one of a referrer whitelist or a referrer blacklist. [Celik, as cited above in regard to claim 2]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed medium or the server executing its instructions. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamalainen et al. in view of LeBeau et al. further in view of Murthy (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0321696).
With regard to Claim 9:
The non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 1, the code further comprising code to cause the at least one server to receive, from a client device, an indication of the predefined condition.
Hamalainen and LeBeau teach the medium of claim 1 including the use of a predefined condition as cited above, but do not explicitly teach receiving an indication of the condition, but it is known in the art. Murthy teaches a campaign management system [title] in which an "advertisement" is sent after a "condition set" is "received" by a campaign manager. [0011] The campaign manager is hosted on a server. [Sheet 1, Fig. 1] Murthy and Hamalainen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing advertisements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Murthy with that of Hamalainen and LeBeau in order to assist a shopper in finding relevant offers, as taught by Murthy; [0002] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply receiving Murthy's data in place of (or in addition to) that of Hamalainen; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamalainen et al. in view of LeBeau et al. further in view of O’Toole (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0358210).
With regard to Claim 19:
The non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 1, the code further comprising code to cause the at least one server to:
authenticate the user of the mobile device based on associating the message body with the user data; and
deliver a promotion associated with the promotional message in response to authenticating the user.
Hamalainen and LeBeau teach the medium of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach this authentication process, but it is known in the art. O'Toole teaches a system for authenticated registration of participants for web access at live events. [title] It may deliver advertisements only to a "list of authenticated users" which may correspond to a "mobile device" to which an advertisement is delivered, the advertisement having been "selected based on [] tracked activity of the user". [Claim 8] O'Toole and Hamalainen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing advertisements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of O'Toole with that of Hamalainen and LeBeau in order to allow users to register in order that information about them may be maintained for their convenience, as taught by O'Toole; [abstract] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply delivering an advertisement on O'Toole's basis rather than (or in addition to) that of Hamalainen; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamalainen et al. in view of LeBeau et al. further in view of Cullen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0053318).
With regard to Claim 29:
The non-transitory, processor-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the user data includes the mobile device identifier, and the mobile device identifier includes a user agent field collected by a web browser.
Hamalainen and LeBeau teach the medium of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach this data, and though it is of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Cullen teaches a targeted advertising system [title] in which "meta data" are used. [abstract] An advertisement is provided based on "demographic data, meta data and declared data". [0002] The metadata may include a "mobile device model" and "id" along with a "user agent", and a "browser type or version". [Claim 20] Cullen and Hamalainen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for providing advertisements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Cullen with that of Hamalainen and LeBeau in order to improve targeting of advertisements, as taught by Cullen; [0002] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply including the data of Cullen in place of, or along with, that of Hamalainen; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1. First, it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed medium or to any computer executing its instructions. Second, as the data only "includes" these, it can include other information, and any further processing can be based entirely on the other information. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamalainen et al. in view of LeBeau et al. further in view of Corley et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,380,326).
With regard to Claim 31:
The non-transitory, processor-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the code further comprises instructions configured to cause the at least one server to generate the response message such that the response message is compatible with the operating system of the mobile device.
Hamalainen and LeBeau teach the medium of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach that a response is compatible with an operating system, but it is known in the art. Corley teaches a media processing system [title] that can provide in-media advertising. [Col. 4, lines 18-19] It can “transcode” content “into other media formats” so as to be “compatible with a variety of devices, operating systems or applications”. [Col. 9, lines 13-16] Corley and Hamalainen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for providing advertisements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Corley with that of Hamalainen and LeBeau in order to improve processing capacity, as taught by Corley; [Col. 1, lines 25-26] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply providing Corley’s output in place of, or in addition to, that of Hamalainen; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to § 101, receiving information is, in and of itself, abstract, and recitations as to what an unclaimed device is, or does, has no impact on the § 101 analysis. Claims 16 and 22, having been withdrawn from consideration, will not be considered herein.
That a “user does not need to install [a] vendor’s mobile application” or can purchase items or subscribe to things more efficiently might improve the user experience, but does nothing to improve the claimed server. The applicant appears to be using the term “practical application” rather broadly, but within the Office it is a term of art, explained (to a degree) in MPEP § 2106. If “practical application” was to be used colloquially, as the applicant appears to be using it, then Alice would have remained a patent, but it did not.
Again, Alice (and many of the other patents invalidated by the Federal Circuit post-Alice) included a “processor and code configured to perform actions”; that, by itself, is not sufficient to present a meaningful analogy to Enfish. The claims are not patent eligible and the rejection is maintained.
In regard to § 103, that a mobile device is to display a promotional message in an application is a limitation to an unclaimed, external device and not the claimed server, which merely transmits information to the mobile device. “User data” is broad enough to encompass any data received from a user, and Hamalainen’s invention unarguably receives information from a user, such as requests from a user and the location of a user, as cited previously and above.
The use of integration tag argued by the applicant refers to its use in “some implementations”, see e.g. ¶ 1037 of the instant specification, but the term is not defined by the applicant so as to require the Examiner to adopt such a definition; in the absence of a clearly limiting definition, the Examiner is obliged to use the broadest reasonable interpretation, which would include a QR code.
The ”populate a custom message” limitation has been stricken from the present set of claims by the applicant, so arguments in regard to whether Hamalainen does, or does not, teach that limitation are moot. Arguments in regard to Pogrebinsky are moot because that reference is not relied upon herein as the basis of any rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694