DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Amendment Entered
In response to the amendment filed on April 16th, 2026, amended claims 1, 6-7, 10, 15-16, and 19 are entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant's arguments, filed on April 16th, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained, and further clarified, in view of the amendment.
At Pgs. 8-9 of the Reply, Applicant argues that under Step 2A, Prong One, “[c]laims 1-20 ‘do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations’…[f]or example, the human mind is ‘not equipped’ to perform practically at least the steps of ‘obtaining, with at least one processor of a device, face tracking data associated with a user,’ as claimed”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to clarify that the step of obtaining face-tracking data is not part of the abstract idea; rather, it is considered a data-gathering step. Mere data-gathering is recognized by the court as insignificant, extra-solution activity. “As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978)” MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further at Pg. 9 of the Reply, Applicant argues “[e]ven permitting the assistance of a physical aid, such as pencil, paper, a slide rule, or any other physical tool, would not allow the human mind to perform these steps practically because these steps occur too quickly for the human mind to accurately process and analyze, at the speed required for audio processing”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant seems to be relying on “the speed required for audio processing” in order to argue why the human mind would not be capable of performing the claimed steps. However, it is unclear as to how “the speed required for audio processing” is relevant to the instant application. Although the independent claims recite “obtain[ing]…device motion data from at least one motion sensor of the device” and the dependent claims recite “capturing, with a camera of the device, video data of the user’s face”, there is no recitation of “audio processing” present within the claims.
Regardless of the lack of “audio processing” in the claims, the Applicant seems to be relying on the “speed” required. However, due to the broadness of the claims and the simplicity of the steps involved, it would certainly be possible for one to track the user’s face from video data to determine a step cadence and estimate a grade of a surface on which the user is walking or running. Once again, the Examiner would like to emphasize that the video data obtained from the camera of the device is part of extra-solution activity, in the form of data-gathering. Once the data is obtained, the abstract idea lies in the determining and estimating steps. In the determining and estimating steps, there is no level of complexity claimed that would preclude a person from practically completing this process in the mind.
Thus, the claims recite mental processes performed on a computer control system. The “Federal Circuit has explained, ‘[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’ Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. Furthermore, there is no time limit recited in the claims for performing the steps. The claimed steps can be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind with no time limit. The computer is merely utilized as a tool to perform the mental steps.
At Pgs. 9-10 of the Reply, Applicant argues that “[a]lternatively, the Examiner has rejected the claims based on the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping”. Examiner would like to clarify that in the previous Office Action, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 was made because the claims were grouped as a “mental process”. The Examiner agrees that the claim limitations are not directed towards methods of organizing human activity; rather, they are directed towards a mental process.
At Pgs. 10-12 of the Reply, Applicant argues that under Step 2A, Prong Two, “[c]laims 1, 2-7, and 27-38 are integrated into the practical application of fitness monitoring”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and would further like to note that currently, only claims 1-20 are currently pending and under examination in the instant application; therefore, it is unclear as to what “claims 27-38” could be referring to.
Regardless, “[t]he full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification).” MPEP 2106.05(a). “That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.” Id. The processor, units, and medium perform the same with or without the claimed abstract idea. Therefore, it is unclear how the abstract idea can improve the standard functions of the additional elements.
At Pgs. 12-13 of the Reply, Applicant cites [0016] of the Applicant’s Specification and argues that the claims “recite the unconventional solution of using a front facing camera detached from the user’s body and face tracking to determine the user’s walking/running cadence and the surface grade of the fitness machine rather than a body-worn device with inertial sensors. This allows for calculating caloric expenditure without the need of a body-worn device (e.g., a smart watch) or fitness machine connectivity”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites wherein the “speed of the user” is based on “the step cadence and a stride length of the user. The “step cadence of the user” was previously recited to be “based on the face tracking data”. However, the claims do not recite how the stride length is obtained. In the Applicant’s Specification, [0042] recites “[s]tride length estimator 510 takes as input the user's step cadence, height, acceleration and speed. Height can be provided by the user through a user interface of the tracking device or otherwise accessed from a storage device. Acceleration can be provided by an accelerometer of the tracking device and speed can be provided by a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver, such as a global positioning system (GPS) receiver embedded in or coupled to the tracking device”. Further in [0043], the Applicant’s Specification recites “[w]hile the user is on the treadmill, a calibration factor k is calculated by dividing a "truth" distance taken from GNSS position from a wearable device (e.g., a smart watch) by the uncalibrated distance”. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are moot, since there are multiple components necessary in order to determine the user’s walking/running cadence and the surface grade of the fitness machine, not just a “front facing camera”, which the Examiner notes is not even present in the independent claims. Rather, the independent claims recite “at least one motion sensor”, which may be incorporated into “any suitable electronic device, including but not limited to: a smartphone, smartwatch, tablet computer, fitness band…one or more motion sensors 810, light sensor 812 and proximity sensor 814 can be coupled to peripherals interface 806 to facilitate motion sensing (e.g., acceleration, rotation rates), lighting and proximity functions of the tracking device…motion sensor(s) 810 can include one or more accelerometers and/or gyros configured to determine change of speed and direction of movement” as recited in [0050-0051] of the Applicant’s Specification.
Further at Pg. 13 of the Reply, Applicant argues that the current claims are “specific implementation steps that impose meaningful limitations on the claims of the solution”, similar to the claims eligible in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (hereinafter, McRO). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
[I]n McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea.” MPEP 2106.05 (a). There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. Unlike McRO, the claimed system invokes a computer as a tool to perform a mathematical concept and/or mental process.
Even further at Pg. 13 of the Reply, Applicant argues that “the claims do not simply recite, without more, the mere desired result of fitness monitoring, but rather recite ‘a specific solution for accomplishing that goal’, citing Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH (942 F.3d 1143) (hereinafter, Koninklijke). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Koninklijke, the Court found that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, whereas there is an abstract idea present within the current claims. Therefore, the claims fail to be patent eligible for the same reasons the Court found the claims eligible in Koninklijke.
At Pg. 14 of the Reply, Applicant argues that under Step 2B, “the elements labeled by the Examiner as abstract are not insignificant post-solution activity or well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field…[r]ather, these elements describe specific implementation steps for fall risk detection”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner further notes that it is unclear as to how “fall risk detection” is relevant to the instant application. Although the independent claims recite obtaining “device motion data” and determining “step cadence”, “speed”, and “energy expenditure”, there is no recitation of “fall risk detection” present within the claims.
Regardless of the lack of “fall risk detection”, the Examiner would like to clarify that the claims have been analyzed as a whole, and that the additional elements have been considered, both individually and in combination. However, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in the independent claims (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The additional elements of: “at least one processor”, “motion sensor”, “camera”, “mobile phone”, “global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver”, and “a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium” fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they either merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or perform data-gathering, which is categorized under insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements of a “motion sensor”, “camera”, “mobile phone”, and “global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver” are all used to gather data in pre-solution activity for the abstract process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, the claims utilize additional elements that are generic and well-known in the industry – as evidenced by the previously cited references Kawamura (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0002648), Raghuram et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0058372), and McCready et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0274567). Kawamura discloses wherein “the measuring apparatus 20 of the present embodiment uses the in-camera of the mobile phone, for example, to continuously monitor the face part, in particular, of the person 30 who has been running or walking on the treadmill 10” in [0031] and a “built-in motion sensor of the mobile phone” in [0032]. Raghuram et al discloses wherein “the companion device may be a second mobile device, such as a phone, which may include additional sensors. The additional sensors in the companion device may include a Global Positioning System (GPS) sensor, accelerometer, gyroscope, altimeter, motion coprocessor, etc” in [0014]. McCready et al discloses wherein “the system utilizes a display device such as a tablet, laptop computer or smart phone with a camera built into the same housing” in [0024] and wherein the “display device 11 can be a smartphone, tablet computer, laptop or other kind of computing device as long as it has a camera 15 and/or a camera 15 and/or accelerometer 18 integrally manufactured therein” in [0038].
In Step 2B, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the abstract idea, the independent claims recite additional steps of obtaining, with at least one processor of a device, face tracking data associated with a user and obtaining, with the at least one processor, device motion data from at least one motion sensor of the device. The obtaining steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant pre-solution and/or post-solution activity, e.g., mere data-gathering steps necessary to perform the abstract idea and determining a value. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and storing engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as a motion sensor used with a camera of a mobile phone or a GNSS receiver, and use of a hardware processor does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)). Thus, the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Each of Claims 1-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 1
Claims 1-9 recite a series of steps or acts for determining energy expenditure. Thus, the claims are directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 10-20 recite a system and non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium for determining energy expenditure. Thus, the claims are directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-20 recites at least one step or instruction for determining energy expenditure, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. The claimed steps of determining can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas.
Accordingly, each of Claims 1-20 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of: “determining, with the at least one processor, a step cadence of the user based on the face tracking data; determining, with the at least one processor, a speed of the user based on the step cadence and a stride length of the user…estimating a grade of a surface on which the user is walking or running based on the face tracking data; and determining, with the at least one processor, an energy expenditure of the user based on the speed, the grade and a caloric expenditure model”.
Specifically, Claim 10 recites the abstract idea of: “determining a step cadence of the user based on the face tracking data; determining a speed of the user based on the step cadence and a stride length of the user…estimating a grade of a surface on which the user is walking or running based on the face tracking data; and determining an energy expenditure of the user based on the speed, the grade and a caloric expenditure model.”
Specifically, Claim 19 recites the abstract idea of: “determining a step cadence of the user based on the face tracking data; determining a speed of the user based on the step cadence and a stride length of the user…estimating a grade of a surface on which the user is walking or running based on the face tracking data; and determining an energy expenditure of the user based on the speed, the grade and a caloric expenditure model.”
Further, dependent Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 10, and 19 (and their respective dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: “at least one processor”, “motion sensor”, “camera”, “mobile phone”, “global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver”, and “a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium” are either generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1, 10, and 19 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field, or data-gathering elements, which is categorized under insignificant extra-solution activity. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 10, and 19 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implement the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., “at least one processor” as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 10, and 19 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 10, and 19 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: “at least one processor”, “motion sensor”, “camera”, “mobile phone”, “global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver”, and “a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium”. The above-identified additional elements are either generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks or categorized as data-gathering elements. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by the Applicant’s specification (e.g. paragraphs [0050]-[0060]) which discloses that the processor(s) comprise generic computer components that are configured to perform the generic computer functions (e.g. determining) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry; the Applicant’s Background in the specification; and the previously cited prior art.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term “at least one processor” is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the “at least one processor”. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-20 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the method, system, and medium of Claims 1-20 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1-20 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 10, and 19 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of Claims 1-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible and remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANEL J YOON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2695. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on 571-272-4233. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANEL J YOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights