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 07/17/2026.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 1, 9, 11, 18, and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 07/17/2026 has been considered.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection of claims 9 and 17-18 and the §103 rejection of claims 10 and 19 are withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to §101 rejection arguments: Applicant's arguments (Remarks at pg. 10) with respect to claim the 35 USC §101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been considered, but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that “Claim 1 as amended integrates any such [abstract] idea into a practical application” based on the assertion that “Claim 1 recites a specific process uses historical controlled-testing data to select at least one surrogate metric that is both correlated with a target metric and sensitive to treatment effect, determines an output of current controlled testing based on that selected surrogate metric, and uses that output to replace the control variant of a webpage or computer-application feature with the treatment variant” (Remarks at pg. 10), the Examiner emphasizes that the claim limitations encompassing the above-cited features are cannot be considered sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are not additional elements, but instead fall within the scope of the abstract idea itself, which are implemented in the claim with generic computing elements (as discussed in the Step 2A2 analysis in the §101 rejection), and any benefit from such generic computer implementation is merely the result of using a generic computer as a tool to perform the step(s) rather than the sequence of steps/activities recited in the method itself and does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claim. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”) (cited in the Federal Circuit's FairWarning decision).
In response to Applicant’s suggestion that the claimed invention “increases speed and accuracy by using already-available past experiment data to identify more informative treatment-effect signals in a practical application” (Remarks at pg. 10), the Examiner emphasizes that no technical improvement has been shown, and even assuming an improvement to “speed and accuracy” by using past experiment data, this alleged improvement is not reasonably considered as a technological improvement but instead would amount to nothing more than eliminating a data collection step in lieu of re-using previous data, which is not reasonably or necessarily considered a technological improvement.
Therefore, any alleged result in the form of computational efficiency (reduced number of item transportation requests) is nothing more than an incidental, natural, and inevitable result of reducing the volume of data to be processed, which does not amount to a technological improvement. Applicant’s attention is directed to PTAB Appeal Decision 2023-002258, which is non-precedential but nevertheless instructive in view of its rationale addressing a similar argument (Decision at pgs. 19-21). The Examiner further notes that applicant’s alleged result of a improved speed/accuracy is not a technical improvement or even an additional element, but instead results from the non-performance of a preceding step or perhaps a step performed outside the scope of the claimed invention (e.g., using prior experiment data), which at most involves selectively choosing past data to utilize, which does not amount to any type of discernible technical improvement to software, a computer, some other technology. As noted at pgs. 20-21 of the above-noted instructive PTAB Decision, such filtering of data/content has been recognized as an abstract idea. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“filtering content is an abstract idea because it is a longstanding, well-known method of organizing human behavior, similar to concepts previously found to be abstract”).
For the reasons above along with the reason provided in the updated §101 rejection below, the amendments and supporting arguments are not sufficient to overcome the §101 rejection.
Response to §102/§103 rejection arguments: Applicant's arguments (Remarks at pgs. 11-12) with respect to the 35 USC §102 rejection of independent claims 9/18 have been considered, and as best understood by the Examiner, are primarily raised in support of the amendments. The amendments to independent claims 9/18 include similar allowable subject matter as independent claim 1 (as indicated in the previous Office Action), such that independent claims 1/9/18 and their dependent claims are now deemed as allowable over the prior art for the reasons provided below in the “Allowable over the prior art” subsection of the instant office action.
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 non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 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 computer implemented methods (claims 1-8 and 9-17) and apparatus (claims 18-20) are each directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., processes and machine). Accordingly, claims 1-20 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 describing commercial interactions (sales or marketing activity) by obtaining marketing intelligence from testing of control and treatment variants, e.g., A/B testing (See Spec., at least par. [0031]: used in various fields such as…product development, marketing), and steps that, but for the generic computer implementation, may be implemented as “Mental Processes” (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion), or that may be implemented as mathematical calculations under the “Mathematical Concepts.” 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 first testing data of a plurality of metrics from a database in memory, the first testing data having been generated from previously controlled testing of different test variants, the plurality of metrics including a target metric and a plurality of surrogate metrics that is indicative of the target metric, the different test variants including a control variant and a treatment variant of a feature of a webpage or a computer application (The “obtaining” step describes activity considered sales/marketing activity because the testing data may be directly in support of marketing activity (see, e.g., Spec. at par. 31) such as gathering A/B testing results of customer opinions on computerized output of advertisements, commercials, or a retailer’s website; and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. In addition, the “obtaining” step may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution 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));
determining, by processing circuitry and based on the first testing data, correlations between each of the plurality of surrogate metrics and the target metric (The “determining” step describes activity considered sales/marketing activity because the determined correlations may be directly in support of marketing activity (see, e.g., Spec. at par. 31) such as for evaluating correlations/similarities/relationships between metrics produced by A/B testing results of customer opinions on computerized output of advertisements, commercials, or a retailer’s website; and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion);
determining, by the processing circuitry, candidate surrogate metrics from the plurality of surrogate metrics based on the determined correlations (The “determining” step describes activity considered sales/marketing activity because the determined candidate surrogate metrics may amount to implementing marketing activity (see, e.g., Spec. at par. 31) such as for determining the highest/strongest correlated surrogate metrics to a target metric relevant to customer opinions on computerized output of advertisements, commercials, or a retailer’s website; and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion);
determining a plurality of sensitivities of the respective candidate surrogate metrics based on the first testing data, a sensitivity of one of the candidate surrogate metrics indicating a probability that a change of the feature of the webpage or the computer application from the control variant to the treatment variant induces an effect that is detected as a statistically significant change in the one of the candidate surrogate metrics (The “determining” step describes activity considered sales/marketing activity because the determined sensitivities may amount to implementing marketing activity (see, e.g., Spec. at par. 31) such as for validating a strong correlation or perhaps inferring causation between candidate surrogate metrics and a target metric of interest, which is reasonably considered as marketing intelligence such as for making adjustments to advertisements, consumer content, retail displays, or the like; and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion); and
selecting at least one candidate surrogate metric from the candidate surrogate metrics based on the determined plurality of sensitivities (The “selecting” step describes activity considered sales/marketing activity because the selection of a surrogate metric based on the sensitivities may amount to implementing marketing activity (see, e.g., Spec. at par. 31) such as for selecting and using a strongly correlated candidate surrogate metric and employing this marketing intelligence for consideration of adjustments to advertisements, consumer content, retail displays, or the like; and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. Furthermore, although the claim does not recite or require doing anything with the output, such as displaying, transmitting, or the like, it is nevertheless noted that merely outputting the indication of whether the treatment variant replaces the control variant would at most be considered insignificant extra-solution output activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application or to add significantly more to the abstract idea for substantially the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of the “obtaining” step, the rationale which is adopted here as well);
determining an output of a current controlled testing of the control variant and the treatment variant of the feature of the webpage or the computer application based on the at least one candidate surrogate metric, the output indicating that the treatment variant replaces the control variant (The “determining” step describes activity considered sales/marketing activity because the determined output may amount to implementing marketing activity (see, e.g., Spec. at par. 31) such as for validating a strong correlation or perhaps inferring causation between candidate surrogate metrics and a target metric of interest, which is reasonably considered as marketing intelligence such as for making adjustments to advertisements, consumer content, retail displays, or the like; and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion); and
replacing the control variant of the feature of the webpage or the computer application with the treatment variant (The “replacing the control variant…” step describes activity considered sales/marketing activity because this activity may amount to implementing marketing activity (see, e.g., Spec. at par. 31) such as for using a different/surrogate variant for evaluating a market metric of interest, which is reasonably considered as marketing intelligence such as for evaluating the metrics used for making adjustments to advertisements, consumer content, retail displays, or the like, and it is further noted that the “replacing” does not require actual replacement or modification, update, or improvement to a webpage or computer application, but instead merely requires replacement of the control variant related to a feature of a webpage, e.g., a variable to be evaluated; and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion).
Independent claims 9 and 18 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 claims 1, 9, and 18 include additional elements directed to computer-implemented method, database in memory, processing circuitry. 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 (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the obtaining step is considered as an additional element, this activity at most amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity accomplished via receiving/transmitting data, which is not enough to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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 claims 1, 9, and 18 include additional elements directed to computer-implemented method, database in memory, processing circuitry. 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, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment), similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). Notably, the Specification describes a litany of generic computing devices suggesting that virtually any computing device under the sun could be used to implement the invention (See, e.g., Spec. at par. [0142], noting for example that “The instructions can be executed on various types of computers or components thereof, including, for example, personal computers, tablet computers, servers, smartphones, gaming devices, internet of things devices, and the like.”). Accordingly, the generic computer implementation merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and therefore 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).
Even if the obtaining step is considered as an additional element, this activity at most amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity accomplished via receiving/transmitting data, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the claims. 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).
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 2-8, 10-17, and 19-20 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 along with the same generic computing elements recited in the independent claims which, merely serve the purpose of tying the invention to a particular technological environment and which, as discussed above, is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the claims.
The additional inputting, receiving, and displaying activities (claims 3, 8, 12, and 17) are considered insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution 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). The graphical user interface that facilitates the displaying activity in claims 8/17 has been considered, but merely involves a generic computing element to “apply it,” which is insufficient under Step 2A2 or Step 2B. See, e.g., Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element”).
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 1-20 are allowable over the prior art. The closest prior art reference of record, Sweeney (US 2023/01956070), is directed to a system for automatic identification/selection of optimization metrics and accompanying models in experimentation platforms. Sweeney teaches several limitations of independent claims 1/9/18, including for example: obtaining first testing data of a plurality of metrics from a database in memory, the first testing data having been generated from previously controlled testing of different test variants, the plurality of metrics including a target metric and a plurality of surrogate metrics that is indicative of the target metric, the different test variants including a control variant and a treatment variant of a feature of a webpage or a computer application (Sweeney at pars. 14, 37, 42, and 46: experimentation platform that selects a metric and/or a methodology for testing a product; experimentation platform may comprise targeting engine (e.g., routing engine) configured to divide users of the product into experiment variants (e.g., control or treatment); experimentation platform may comprise targeting engine (e.g., routing engine) configured to divide users of the product into experiment variants (e.g., control or treatment); product may be a new website design; configuring the product according to the selected configuration may comprise a new configuration for an application and/or a new interface for the application, a new website design; computing device may generate a list of candidate proxy metrics [i.e., surrogate metrics] from one or more engagement metrics. As described herein, one or more engagement metrics may be used as a proxy metric for a performance metric [i.e., target metric]. The computing device may generate candidate proxy metrics, for example, based on historical proxy metrics, one or more engagement metrics, a combination of engagement metrics, etc. In step 505, the computing device may determine whether a correlation exists between each of the candidate proxy metrics and the performance metric received in the request to test and/or optimize the product. The correlation may be based on historical data and/or behavior learned via a correlation model, or a metric correlation model); determining, by processing circuitry and based on the first testing data, correlations between each of the plurality of surrogate metrics and the target metric (Sweeney at par. 46: determine whether a correlation exists between each of the candidate proxy metrics and the performance metric received in the request to test and/or optimize the product. The correlation may be based on historical data and/or behavior learned via a correlation model, or a metric correlation model. In step 507, the computing device may determine whether the correlation between the proxy metric and the performance metric satisfies a threshold); and determining, by the processing circuitry, candidate surrogate metrics from the plurality of surrogate metrics based on the determined correlations (par. 46: computing device may determine whether the correlation between the proxy metric and the performance metric satisfies a threshold. If the correlation fails to satisfy the threshold, the method proceeds to step 511, where the computing device determines whether additional proxy metrics exists. If so, the method returns to step 505. If the correlation does satisfy the threshold, the computing device may add the candidate proxy metric to the list of proxy metrics), as recited by independent claim 1, with similar features being encompassed by independent claims 9/18. However, Sweeney and the other prior art references of record do not teach or render obvious the combined sequence of claim limitations directed to determining a plurality of sensitivities of the respective candidate surrogate metrics based on the first testing data, a sensitivity of one of the candidate surrogate metrics indicating a probability that a change of the feature of the webpage or the computer application from the control variant to the treatment variant induces an effect that is detected as a statistically significant change in the one of the candidate surrogate metrics; and selecting at least one candidate surrogate metric from the candidate surrogate metrics based on the determined plurality of sensitivities, as recited by independent claim 1 and as similarly encompassed by independent claims 9 and 18, thereby rendering claims 1/9/18 and their respective dependent claims (2-8, 10-17, and 19-20) as allowable over the prior art. Claims 1-20 are not allowable, however, because these claims 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:
Ogallo et al. (US 2023/0325871): discloses subgroup analysis in A/B testing, including predicting membership of individuals to a stratus of population strata using surrogate features (par. 25).
Pekelis et al. (US 2017/0083429): discloses features for performing variation testing of content, including running A/B tests for content providers (par. 59), statistical processing techniques to control the rate of false positives (pars. 40-42), and applying a policy to determine a distribution of variations of web pages to provide to users (par. 29).
Katariya et al. (US 2017/0323329): discloses A/B testing for determining an impact of digital marketing content on conversion of products or services (par. 49).
Anderson et al. (US Patent No., 9,996,513): discloses flexible analytics-driven webpage design and optimization, including A/B testing techniques to help identify changes in web pages that increase or maximize an outcome of interest (col. 1, lines 43-67).
Hugeback et al. (US Patent No. 8,234,632): discloses adaptive website optimization, including features for reducing the probability of false positives (col. 7, lines 65-67).
Xu et al. (US 2016/0253311): discloses features for conducting A/B experiments of online content (at least pars. 24-30).
Deng, A., Lu, J., Litz, J.: Trustworthy analysis of online A/B tests. In: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, WSDM 2017, pp. 641–649 (2017): discloses techniques for conducting experiments using online A/B tests with a focus on improving the statistical analysis of A/B tests by applying a randomization mechanism to enhance trustworthiness of the results.
R. Kohavi and R. Longbotham, "Online Experiments: Lessons Learned," in Computer, vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 103-105, Sept. 2007: discloses techniques for implementing online controlled experiments (e.g., A/B testing), including analyzing past experiments and conducting new learning experiments to gain insight into metrics and learn mappings between indicators.
A. Fabijan, P. Dmitriev, H. H. Olsson and J. Bosch, "The Benefits of Controlled Experimentation at Scale," 2017 43rd Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), Vienna, Austria, 2017, pp. 18-26: discloses features for evaluating proposed changes or new features quickly using controlled online experiments.
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
09/16/2026
Prosecution Insights