Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment received 06/24/2026.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 1 and 18-20 are amended and claims 16-17 are cancelled. Claims 1-15 and 18-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 04/24/2026 has been considered.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 1-14, 16, and 19-20 is withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment.
The 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of claims 1-15 and 18-20 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Response to §101 arguments: Applicant's arguments (Remarks at pgs. 13-18) with respect to the §101 rejection of claims 1-15 and 18-20 have been considered, but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claims improve the accuracy of target tracking, citing par. [0052] of the Specification, and suggestion that “Improving the accuracy of target tracking is a technical effect” and thus a practical application (Remarks at pg. 13), the Examiner first points out that even assuming that the claimed invention improves the accuracy of customer target tracking, this is neither a technical improvement nor a technical effect. At most, the solution recited in the claims amounts to a solution rooted in marketing/sales activity pursuant to assigning pickers to evaluating customer activity in an offline sales venue. The processor based implementation of the claims steps is similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment) and does not add a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). See also, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In response to applicant’s suggestion that the “newly incorporated customer track correction operation” improves upon the accuracy of target tracking (Remarks at pg. 15), the Examiner notes that these features (i.e. the last 5 steps in claim 1 for performing the “correction operation”) fall squarely within the scope of the abstract idea itself (See Step 2A Prong One of §101 rejection below), and therefore insufficient to render claims eligible. We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating §102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec). Accordingly, applicant’s argument relying on limitations describing the abstract idea itself is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claims recited in improvement analogous to the improvements in the CAFC’s Enfish and McRO decisions (Remarks at pg. 16), the Examiner emphasizes that the CAFC’s Enfish decision found that the claimed invention for configuring memory according to a logical table embodied the technological solution/improvement (i.e., the self-referential table) resulted in faster search times and smaller memory requirements, whereas Applicant’s claims merely rely on generic computing elements to perform the steps, but do nothing to configure, reconfigure, manipulate, transform, or improve a computer, computer-vision, or any technological components at all, but instead implement steps that invoke generic computing elements to yield a final result of “determining whether the re-identification feature similarity is greater than a predetermined similarity threshold, and, based on the determination, determining the candidate matching track as a portion of the customer track corresponding to the receipt data group,” which is a step that could be implemented mentally and which at most involves at most the use of a generic computer as a tool to perform marketing/sales activity and steps that are otherwise implementable mentally by a human, which is not analogous to the specific technical improvement discussed in Enfish.
In response to Applicant’s citation to the CAFC’s McRO decision, the claims in McRO share virtually no similarities with Applicant’s invention. The claims in McRO were directed to a technological improvement over existing, manual 3-D animation techniques by using unconventional rules that relate sub-sequences or phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice, which transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by humans into a mathematically automated process executed on computers. No similar subject matter, technical field, or improvement appears to be contemplated in Applicant’s disclosure or achieved through Applicant’s claims. Notably, exemplary claim 1 of the McRO ‘576 Patent applied the inventive solution in the final limitation of the claim by “applying said final applying said final stream of output morph weight sets to a sequence of animated characters to produce lip synchronization and facial expression control of said animated characters,” which was a technological result/solution as recognized by the CAFC as “a specific asserted improvement in computer animation.” No comparable technical solution or effect has been shown in the instant case.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claims cannot be performed as mental processes, and applicant’s reliance on features such as “cosine similarity between representative re-identification feature vectors…, evaluating detection confidence levels, occlusion rates, and height rations of bounding boxes within tracklets…, and iterating this process…across one or more cameras monitoring a retail environment containing potentially hundreds of concurrent customers” (Remarks at pg. 17), this argument lacks merit because the claims do not recite or inherently require the above-noted features and it would be improper to import this limitation from the specification. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also, CollegeNet, Inc. v. Apply Yourself Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (while the specification can be examined for proper context of a claim term, limitations from the specification will not be imported into the claims).
In response to Applicant’s reliance, under Step 2B, on the CAFC’s BASCOM decision (Remarks at pg. 18), the Examiner finds virtually not similarities between the fact pattern, the additional elements, or the eligibility rationale in BASCOM and the claims in this instance. In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit found that the claims amounted to a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement” of the additional elements, including installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. However, Applicant’s claims do not include similar additional elements or a non-conventional arrangement of the additional elements, instead relying on general purpose computing elements accompanied by insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, such that whether considered individually and as an ordered combination, these additional elements have not been found to yield an improvement to the generic computer/processor or any other technology. Therefore, Applicant’s reliance on the rationale set forth in the BASCOM decision is not persuasive.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments concerning the §101 rejection are not persuasive.
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 1-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the subject matter eligibility guidance set forth in MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.03), it is first noted that the claimed method (claims 1-15 and 18), device (claim 19), and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 20) are each directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-15 and 18-20 satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04), it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping by reciting limitations that set forth activities for managing commercial interactions (marketing, or sales activities or behaviors) or managing personal behavior or interactions (e.g., movements of a customer) and steps that, but for the generic computer implementation, may be implemented as “Mental Processes” (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion). The limitations reciting the abstract idea, as set forth in independent claim 1 are identified in bold text below, whereas the additional elements are presented in plain text and are separately evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B:
obtaining a customer track set by processing videos by one or more cameras (The “obtaining” step is considered marketing/sales activity because the obtained customer track set directly pertains to evaluation of customer behavior and purchase activity at a retail location, which is marketing intelligence, and furthermore this step is considered insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution data gathering activity has also been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)) and determining, by a processor, a candidate customer track set of a receipt data group corresponding to one of a plurality of shopping receipts from the customer track set (The “determining” step is considered marketing/sales activity because the determined information may directly pertain to evaluation of customer behavior and purchase activity at a retail location, which is marketing intelligence, and furthermore this step is disembodied because the step does not recite “how” or by what means the determining is implemented and therefore this step could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion and/or with the aid of pen and paper);
counting, by the processor, for each track in the candidate customer track set, the number of sold items matching the track in a display area of a sold item set indicated by the receipt data group, as a first location matching count of the track (The “counting” step is considered marketing/sales activity because the counted sold items may directly pertain to evaluation of customer behavior and purchase activity at a retail location, which is marketing intelligence, and furthermore this step is disembodied because the step does not recite “how” or by what means the “counting” is implemented and therefore this step could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion and/or with the aid of pen and paper);
counting, by the processor, for each track in the candidate customer track set, the number of sold items matching track points of interest in a set of track points of interest of the track in the display area of the sold item set, as a second location matching count of the track (The “counting” step is considered marketing/sales activity because the counted sold items may directly pertain to evaluation of customer behavior and purchase behavior at a retail location, which is marketing intelligence, and furthermore this step is disembodied because the step does not recite “how” or by what means the “counting” is implemented and therefore this step could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion and/or with the aid of pen and paper); and
determining, by the processor, a customer track corresponding to the receipt data group in the candidate customer track set based on first location matching counts and second location matching counts of a plurality of tracks in the candidate customer track set (The “determining” step is considered marketing/sales activity because the determined information may directly pertain to evaluation of customer behavior and purchase activity at a retail location, which is marketing intelligence, and furthermore this step is disembodied because the step does not recite “how” or by what means the determining is implemented and therefore this step could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion and/or with the aid of pen and paper);
wherein a track point of interest included in the set of track points of interest of each track in the candidate customer track set is a track point indicating a location where a corresponding customer of the track shows interest in an item for sale displayed in an offline sales venue (The “wherein” limitation is considered marketing/sales activity because the track point location information related to a customer and item of interest for sale may directly pertain to evaluation of customer behavior and purchase activity at a retail location, which is marketing intelligence, and furthermore this step is disembodied because this activity could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion and/or with the aid of pen and paper);
wherein determining a customer track corresponding to the receipt data group in the candidate customer track set based on first location matching counts and second location matching counts of a plurality of tracks in the candidate customer track set includes: determining a weighted sum of a first location matching count and a second location matching count for each track in the candidate customer track set; determining a maximum weighted sum of all weighted sums (The “wherein” limitation is considered marketing/sales activity because the embedded determining steps for determining a weighted sum and maximum weighted sum directly pertain to evaluation of customer behavior and purchase activity at a retail location, which is marketing intelligence, and furthermore this activity is disembodied because this activity could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion and/or with the aid of pen and paper); and
determining a corresponding track corresponding to the maximum weighted sum as a portion of the customer track corresponding to the receipt data group (This limitation is considered marketing/sales activity because the determining of a corresponding track may directly pertain to evaluation of customer behavior and purchase activity at a retail location, which is marketing intelligence, and furthermore this step is disembodied because this activity could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion and/or with the aid of pen and paper);
wherein the method further comprises performing a customer track correction operation, the customer track correction operation includes: updating the candidate customer track set by removing the corresponding track from the candidate customer track set; updating the sold item set by removing an item matching the corresponding track from the sold item set; determining, in the updated candidate customer track set, a track with a maximum location matching count with respect to locations of sold items in the updated sold item set, as a candidate matching track; determining a re-identification feature similarity between the candidate matching track and the corresponding track based on re-identification features; and determining whether the re-identification feature similarity is greater than a predetermined similarity threshold, and, based on the determination, determining the candidate matching track as a portion of the customer track corresponding to the receipt data group (The “updating” and “determining” activities for performing a customer track correction operation are considered marketing/sales activity because these steps for correcting a customer track may directly pertain to evaluation of customer behavior and purchase activity at a retail location, which is marketing intelligence, and furthermore activity is disembodied and could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion and/or with the aid of pen and paper).
Independent claims 19-20 recite similar limitations as those set forth in claim 1 as discussed above, and have therefore been determined to recite the same abstract idea as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 1 recites the additional element of a processor and obtaining…by processing videos by one or more cameras, independent claim 19 recites the additional elements of a device, memory storing instructions, at least one processor, and obtaining…by processing videos by one or more cameras, and independent claim 20 recites the additional element of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, and obtaining…by processing videos by one or more cameras. The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). The step for obtaining…by processing videos by one or more cameras is recited at a high level of generality and is considered insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent claim 1 recites the additional element of a processor and obtaining…by processing videos by one or more cameras, independent claim 19 recites the additional elements of a device, memory storing instructions, at least one processor, and obtaining…by processing videos by one or more cameras, and independent claim 20 recites the additional element of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, and obtaining…by processing videos by one or more cameras. These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions/software to perform the abstract idea (See Spec. at pars. 55 and 57), which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (network computing environment), similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The step for obtaining…by processing videos captured by one or more cameras has been considered as well, but is considered insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)). Furthermore, obtaining…by processing videos captured by one or more cameras is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced, for example, by Steiner et al. (US 2020/0311788), noting in par. 17 that “camera known in the art capable of capturing video imagery and/or still images, and then communicating those captured images to computer server…identify customers” and by Garel et al. (US 2015/0025936), noting in par. 104 that “intelligence module utilizes algorithms known in the art (such as Intel AIM Suite or SightCorp Crowdsight) to determine a person's gender, approximate age, and sentiment (such as based upon video images captured by cameras or other information monitoring device).” Therefore, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the claims.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-15 and 18 recite the same abstract idea(s) as recited in the independent claims, and have been determined to recite further details/steps falling under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and/or “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings discussed above. For example, dependent claims 2-3 provide further details about the receipt group data, which merely narrows the abstract idea and is devoid of any additional elements. Dependent claims 4-15 and 17-18 have been evaluated as well, but similarly recite details falling under the scope of the abstract idea itself. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Allowable over the prior art
Claims 1-15 and 18-20 are allowable over the prior art. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach or render obvious the combination of limitations directed to: wherein determining a customer track corresponding to the receipt data group in the candidate customer track set based on first location matching counts and second location matching counts of a plurality of tracks in the candidate customer track set includes: determining a weighted sum of a first location matching count and a second location matching count for each track in the candidate customer track set; determining a maximum weighted sum of all weighted sums; and determining a corresponding track corresponding to the maximum weighted sum as a portion of the customer track corresponding to the receipt data group; wherein the method further comprises performing a customer track correction operation, the customer track correction operation includes: updating the candidate customer track set by removing the corresponding track from the candidate customer track set; updating the sold item set by removing an item matching the corresponding track from the sold item set; determining, in the updated candidate customer track set, a track with a maximum location matching count with respect to locations of sold items in the updated sold item set, as a candidate matching track; determining a re-identification feature similarity between the candidate matching track and the corresponding track based on re-identification features; and determining whether the re-identification feature similarity is greater than a predetermined similarity threshold, and, based on the determination, determining the candidate matching track as a portion of the customer track corresponding to the receipt data group, as recited and arranged in combination with the other limitations required by the method of independent claim 1 and as similarly encompassed by the device and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of independent claims 19-20, respectively, thereby rendering claims 1-15 and 18-20 as allowable over the prior art. Claims 1-15 and 18-20 are not allowed because they stand rejected under 35 USC §101 as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen et al. (US 2021/0133787): discloses features for product popularity analysis and management, including analyzing traffic flows of customers.
Berry et al. (US 2021/0295081): discloses a tracking and analytics system for extracting visitor tracks in a space of interest based on three-dimensional computer models of the space created from captured images.
Bonner et al. (US 2009/0240571): discloses features for acquiring actual real-time shopper behavior during a shopper’s product selection.
Sorensen (US 2006/0010030): discloses features for modeling shopping behavior.
Glaser et al. (US 2017/0323376): discloses computer vision driven applications within an environment for tracking objects and their locations.
D. A. Mora Hernandez et al., "How Computer Vision Provides Physical Retail with a Better View on Customers," 2019 IEEE 21st Conference on Business Informatics (CBI), Moscow, Russia, 2019, pp. 462-471: discloses tracking locations of customers within retail stores in real-time using a video data acquisition system to aid in providing real-time dashboards, displaying personalized recommendations, efficiently deploying staff, shoplifting prevention and general store optimization.
J. Kröckel et al., "Customer Tracking and Tracing Data as a Basis for Service Innovations at the Point of Sale," 2012 Annual SRII Global Conference, San Jose, CA, USA, 2012, pp. 691-696: discloses customer tracking via aerial mounted surveillance cameras and computer vision algorithms, tracking and tracing of customers to facilitate visual analysis such as number of visits and movement patterns.
P. L. Venetianer et al., "Video verification of point of sale transactions," 2007 IEEE Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance, London, UK, 2007, pp. 411-416: discloses intelligent video and POS analysis to aid with loss prevention in a retail environment.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Timothy A. Padot whose telephone number is 571.270.1252. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30 - 5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571.270.5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TIMOTHY PADOT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
08/12/2026
Prosecution Insights