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
This is a non-final rejection.
Claims 1-4, and 6-12 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/01/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s response date 01/01/2026. Amending claim 1.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in light of the amendments.
The previously claim 1 objection will be withdrawn.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 103- No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reason found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues (Page 6 of the remarks):
The current Application introduces a specific computerized shift-extension mechanism integrated with a Workforce Management (WFM) system that performs real-time adjustment during an ongoing shift rather than pre-shift planning, which cannot practically be performed mentally by humans at scale. Thus, the current Application is a technical improvement in the WFM system.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
With regard to an abstract idea, Independent Claim, when “taken as a whole,” are directed to the abstract idea and substantially recite the limitations:
A computer-implemented method for adjusting agents staffing levels of a successive work- shift of a preassigned ongoing work-shift, during the preassigned ongoing work-shift, in a contact center, said computer-implemented method comprising:
(i) during the preassigned ongoing work-shift, determining a number of agents to handle inbound-interactions that require one or more skills for the successive work-shift;
(ii) comparing the number of agents to handle inbound-interactions that require one or more skills to a threshold;
(iii) when the number of agents to handle inbound-interactions that require one or more skills is above the threshold, calculating a number of extra-agents; and
(iv) operating a shift-extension module to: (i) select the number of extra-agents from agents having the one or more skills which are assigned to the preassigned ongoing work-shift; and
(ii) update corresponding schedules of the selected number of extra- agents, in a database of a Workforce Management (WFM) system,
wherein the shift-extension module comprising:(i) calculating Agent Shift Extension Score (ASES) for each agent having one or more skills which are assigned to the preassigned ongoing work-shift; (ii) sorting the agents having one or more skills which are assigned to the preassigned work-shift based on the calculated ASES in a descending order and storing the agents having one or more skills which are assigned to the preassigned work-shift and calculated ASES in a shift-tracking data-store; (iii) retrieving from the shift-tracking data-store one or more agents having a calculated ASES that is above a preconfigured ASES-threshold; (iv) when the retrieved one or more agents having a calculated ASES that is above a preconfigured ASES-threshold is not below the determined number of agents to handle inbound-interactions that require one or more skills, selecting the number of extra-agents from the retrieved one or more agents having highest ASES; and (v) when the retrieved one or more agents having a calculated ASES that is above a preconfigured ASES-threshold is below the determined number of agents to handle inbound-interactions that require one or more skills, updating the preconfigured ASES-threshold by a preconfigured percentage and repeating operations (iii) thin(v) with the updated preconfigured ASES-threshold as the preconfigured ASES- threshold.
The Applicant's Specification titled " SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ADJUSTING AGENTS STAFFING LEVELS OF A SUCCESSIVE WORK-SHIFT OF A PREASSIGNED ONGOING WORK-SHIFT, DURING THE PREASSIGNED ONGOING WORK-SHIFT, IN A CONTACT CENTER" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for adjusting agents staffing levels of a preassigned successive work-shift, during the preassigned ongoing work-shift, in a contact center" (Spec. [0006]).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claim 1 is recites the abstract idea for adjusting agents staffing levels of a preassigned successive work-shift, during the preassigned ongoing work-shift, in a contact center. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution for adjusting agents staffing levels of a preassigned successive work-shift, during the preassigned ongoing work-shift, in a contact center. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite adjusting agents staffing levels of a preassigned successive work-shift, during the preassigned ongoing work-shift, in a contact center. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant argues (Page 7 of the remarks):
The current Application integrates into a practical application as it operates within the WFM system and directly update schedules in the system during the shift. Moreover, an iterative threshold adjustment ensures staffing levels converge toward requirements. This iterative adjustment provides a computing solution to an operational optimization problem and may not be considered an abstract concept. Conventional systems plan staffing before the shift starts but don't dynamically extend staffing mid-shift.
As previously argued, the Applicant asserts that the claim elements provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The selecting of the number of extra-agents from agents having the one or more skills which are assigned to the preassigned ongoing work-shift; and updating corresponding schedules of the selected number of extra-agents agents, in a database of a Workforce Management (WFM) system which are operated in real-time during the preassigned ongoing work-shift in the contact center, move it outside the realm of abstract idea and demonstrate that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recite the additional limitation “system”, and “database” are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
The Alice framework, step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Independent claims do not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. The claims include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include “system”, and “database”
Examiner asserts that “system”, and “database” are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions. (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Further, with regard to mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
In addition, figure 3, of the specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
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 1-4, and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-4, and 6-12 are directed toward a method (process). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-4, and 6-12 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method for adjusting agents staffing levels of a successive work- shift of a preassigned ongoing work-shift, during the preassigned ongoing work-shift, in a contact center, said computer-implemented method comprising:
(i) during the preassigned ongoing work-shift, determining a number of agents to handle inbound-interactions that require one or more skills for the successive work-shift;
(ii) comparing the number of agents to handle inbound-interactions that require one or more skills to a threshold;
(iii) when the number of agents to handle inbound-interactions that require one or more skills is above the threshold, calculating a number of extra-agents; and
(iv) operating a shift-extension module to: (i) select the number of extra-agents from agents having the one or more skills which are assigned to the preassigned ongoing work-shift; and
(ii) update corresponding schedules of the selected number of extra- agents, in a database of a Workforce Management (WFM) system,
wherein the shift-extension module comprising:(i) calculating Agent Shift Extension Score (ASES) for each agent having one or more skills which are assigned to the preassigned ongoing work-shift; (ii) sorting the agents having one or more skills which are assigned to the preassigned work-shift based on the calculated ASES in a descending order and storing the agents having one or more skills which are assigned to the preassigned work-shift and calculated ASES in a shift-tracking data-store; (iii) retrieving from the shift-tracking data-store one or more agents having a calculated ASES that is above a preconfigured ASES-threshold; (iv) when the retrieved one or more agents having a calculated ASES that is above a preconfigured ASES-threshold is not below the determined number of agents to handle inbound-interactions that require one or more skills, selecting the number of extra-agents from the retrieved one or more agents having highest ASES; and (v) when the retrieved one or more agents having a calculated ASES that is above a preconfigured ASES-threshold is below the determined number of agents to handle inbound-interactions that require one or more skills, updating the preconfigured ASES-threshold by a preconfigured percentage and repeating operations (iii) thin(v) with the updated preconfigured ASES-threshold as the preconfigured ASES- threshold.
The Applicant's Specification titled " SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ADJUSTING AGENTS STAFFING LEVELS OF A SUCCESSIVE WORK-SHIFT OF A PREASSIGNED ONGOING WORK-SHIFT, DURING THE PREASSIGNED ONGOING WORK-SHIFT, IN A CONTACT CENTER" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for adjusting agents staffing levels of a preassigned successive work-shift, during the preassigned ongoing work-shift, in a contact center" (Spec. [0006]).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claim 1 is recites the abstract idea for adjusting agents staffing levels of a preassigned successive work-shift, during the preassigned ongoing work-shift, in a contact center. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution for adjusting agents staffing levels of a preassigned successive work-shift, during the preassigned ongoing work-shift, in a contact center. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite adjusting agents staffing levels of a preassigned successive work-shift, during the preassigned ongoing work-shift, in a contact center. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-4, and 6-12 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments, such as
claim 2 wherein the determining of the number of agents to handle inbound-interactions that require one or more skills is operated by a forecasting module.
claim 3 wherein the threshold is a sum of a number of agents having the one or more skills which are assigned to the successive work-shift and a preconfigured buffer.
claim 4 wherein the calculating of the number of extra-agents comprising reducing from the number of agents to handle inbound-interactions that require one or more skills a number of agents that are currently assigned to the successive work-shift.
claim 5 Cancelled
claim 6
PNG
media_image1.png
283
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
claim 7 wherein the selecting of the number of extra- agents from the retrieved one or more agents having a calculated ASES comprising selecting the number of extra-agents from the retrieved one or more agents having highest calculated ASES.
claim 8 wherein after the selecting of the number of extra-agents from the retrieved one or more agents having a calculated ASES marking agents from the retrieved one or more agents that were not selected as backup.
Claim 9 wherein the calculating of ASES is operated after a selection of agents from a list of agents marked as volunteered-for-extension and reducing the selected number of agents from the list of agents marked as volunteered-for- extension from the number of extra-agents.
Claim 10 wherein the operating of the shift-extension module further comprising: checking a duration of extension of time for each agent against maximum-allowable duration and rotating each agent that the duration of time has exceeded the maximum-allowable duration to balance the workload and scheduling.
Claim 11 wherein when the determined number of agents to handle inbound-interactions that require one or more skills for the successive work-shift number is higher than the number of agents that were assigned to the successive work-shift and below the threshold, the computer-implemented method further comprising sending a notification as to an overstaffing scenario to a computerized device to be displayed thereon.
Claim 12 wherein when the determined number of agents to handle inbound-interactions that require one or more skills for the successive work-shift number is lower than the number of agents that were assigned to the successive work-shift calculating Agent Shift Extension Score (ASES) for each agent having one or more skills which are assigned to the preassigned ongoing work-shift and sending VoluntaryTime Off (VTO) and Paid Time Off (PTO) suggestions to a computerized-device of an excess-number of agents having lowest calculated ASES.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claim 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-4, and 6-12 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claim 1 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1.
A database workforce management system
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claim 1 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a database, and system which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, " (figure 3). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claim 1 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps systems for adjusting agents staffing levels of a preassigned successive work-shift, during the preassigned ongoing work-shift, in a contact center and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention adjust agents staffing levels of a preassigned successive work-shift, during the preassigned ongoing work-shift, in a contact center. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-4, and 6-12 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1 respectively, for example, claim 2 recite prediction module but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 1, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-4, and 6-12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of claim 1 include a database and a system. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to adjusting agents staffing levels of a preassigned successive work-shift, during the preassigned ongoing work-shift, in a contact center.
Claims 1-4, and 6-12 are accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, and 6-12 are allowable over the prior art, however, these claims remain rejection under 35 USC 101.
Closest prior art to the invention include Johnston et al. US 11,368,588 disclose Dynamic communication routing at contact centers, Yates et al US 2024/0005234 disclose Systems and methods for network resource allocations, D’Attilio et al. US 2022/0027837 Method and system for scalable contact center agent scheduling utilizing automated AI modeling and multi-objective optimization and Lawrence et al. US 2022/0405694 Method, apparatus, and computer-readable medium for managing workforces with rotating shifts. None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in claim 5, “wherein the shift-extension module comprising:(i) calculating Agent Shift Extension Score (ASES) for each agent having one or more skills which are assigned to the preassigned ongoing work-shift; (ii) sorting the agents having one or more skills which are assigned to the preassigned work-shift based on the calculated ASES in a descending order and storing the agents having one or more skills which are assigned to the preassigned work-shift and calculated ASES in a shift-tracking data-store; (iii) retrieving from the shift-tracking data-store one or more agents having a calculated ASES that is above a preconfigured ASES-threshold; (iv) when the retrieved one or more agents having a calculated ASES that is above a preconfigured ASES-threshold is not below the determined number of agents to handle inbound-interactions that require one or more skills, selecting the number of extra-agents from the retrieved one or more agents having highest ASES; and (v) when the retrieved one or more agents having a calculated ASES that is above a preconfigured ASES-threshold is below the determined number of agents to handle inbound-interactions that require one or more skills, updating the preconfigured ASES-threshold by a preconfigured percentage and repeating operations (iii) thin(v) with the updated preconfigured ASES-threshold as the preconfigured ASES- threshold. ” The reason for withdrawn the 35 USC 102/103 rejection of claims 1-4, and 6-12 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
Li S, Koole G, Jouini O. A simple solution for optimizing weekly agent scheduling in a multi-skill multi-channel contact center. In2019 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC) 2019 Dec 8 (pp. 3657-3668). IEEE.
Awada CA3015785: System and method for sharing and managing professional availabilities in a plurality of workplaces.
Lewis US 9883037: Systems and methods in an electronic contact management system to estimate required staff level for multi-skilled agents.
Dong et al. US 2024/0364815: Training modeling engines to predict contact center agent demand.
Pat US 2024/0330828: Systems and methods relating to estimating lift in target metrics of contact centers.
Singh et al. US 2022/0067632: Scheduling optimization.
Gogate US 2020/0021686: Method and system for automatic detection of agent availability to attend a schedule and reassignment thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 February 11, 2026