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
Applicant filed an amendment on 5/4/26. Claims 1-5 were pending. Claims 7-12 are new and claims 1, 2 are amended and thus, claims 1-5, and 7-12 are pending. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and non-persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
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 1-5,7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
They are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a method claim which is statutory. (step 1 yes) Claim 1 is the representative independent claim (only one).
The abstract elements;
selecting, by each of a plurality of employees of an employer, a monetary contribution amount for contribution to the employee stock purchase plan, the selected monetary contribution amount being comprising from zero to an amount less than a maximum allowable contribution under limits of the employee stock purchase plan, wherein the selected monetary contribution amount may comprise zero or no contribution, the selected monetary contribution amount defined as one of a plurality of risk values selected from the group comprising high risk values, medium risk values and low risk values: aggregating, via a transaction module executable by a … residing on a …, the plurality of employees into one of a plurality of virtual containers, each of the plurality of employees having a unique identifier assigned thereto based on the selected monetary contribution amount or other identifier; assigning the defined risk values to one of the plurality of virtual containers based upon the selected monetary contribution amount of each employee; providing, via a monetary contribution module executable by the server processor, by a third party on behalf of each of the plurality of employees, a supplemental monetary contribution having a principal equal to one of a difference between the selected monetary contribution amount by each employee and the maximum allowable contribution under the employee stock purchase plan or another specific limit during an offering period, or a lesser principal amount as may be elected or agreed to by the employee, up to wherein a sum of the selected contribution amount and the lesser principal amount is less than the maximum allowable contribution under the limits of the employee stock purchase plan; transmitting the supplemental monetary contribution to the employer or each employee directly on behalf of a financial or ledger account funded or credited with the selected monetary contribution or the equivalent value of shares which when sold would fund an exercise price amount of each employee during the offering period, each financial or ledger account used to purchase shares of employer stock via the employee stock purchase plan at the end of the offering period, or directly transmitting the supplemental monetary contribution to each employee, either in one lump sum or in two or more installments, said installments optionally correlated with the employee's payroll cycles; sequencing, via the transaction module, order instructions for a plurality of trade positions based on the aggregated plurality of virtual containers disbursing to a transfer agent, plan administrator, or each employee directly, via a share disbursement module executable by the server processor, instructions, orders or other similar actions or communications to issue, deliver or sell a number of shares of employer stock required to reimburse the supplemental monetary contribution and any applicable fees by the third party, fund the exercise price of an option or, sell an option at current market value in the event of a sale of an option that on the purchase date is in-the-money, to allow the third party to deliver shares of employer stock to a counterparty upon the counterparty's exercise of the option or executing such transactions directly on behalf of the employee; disbursing, via the share disbursement module, to the third party from the employer or employee, the required number of shares of employer stock or other stock, or an equivalent amount of cash or other consideration; disbursing, via the share disbursement module, to each of the plurality of employees from the employer, a number of shares of employer stock or cash equal to a difference between the number of shares of employer stock acquired using an aggregate of the selected monetary contribution and the supplemental monetary contribution, and the number of shares of employer stock disbursed to the third party in repayment of the supplemental monetary contribution remaining after using a portion of the shares to fund the exercise price, if applicable; delivering, via the transaction module, the shares of employer stock acquired by the employee, for sale on the open market or otherwise, or the equivalent amount of cash including applicable fees in connection with fulfillment of the employee's obligation to repay the supplemental monetary contribution; and returning, by the third party to the financial or ledger account of each of the plurality of employees or an aggregate account with similar purpose, proceeds from the sale of the shares of employer stock on the open market, or to the counterparty or otherwise, or returning shares, wherein the proceeds and value of shares are equivalent to the value of shares from the employee stock purchase plan that the employee would have received if the employee had initially contributed an amount equal to a sum of the selected monetary contribution and the supplemental monetary contribution, minus the repayment amount inclusive of fees related to the supplemental monetary contribution or use of shares to fund the exercise price.
The non -abstract elements include “server processor” However, implementing a complex transaction to obtain or help the employee obtain a stock discount in summary is a fundamental economic practice that is implemented by a generic “server processor”
Claims 2, 3 and 4 include “modules”, claims 7-12 do not add any special computer elements.
The exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of module and server processor are generic such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using the generic computing component. They do not impose meaningful limits on the practicing of the abstract idea and at a high level of generality. (step 2a prong 2 no)
The claims do not include additional element that are significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately or in combination they do not add significantly more known as inventive concept using computer hardware. Mere instructions to apply the exception suing a generic component cannot provided a generic component.
The dependent claims do not further define the abstract idea. There are no specific additional elements that would result in significantly more. Thus claims 2-5 are not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 as amended contains “the selected monetary contribution defined as one of a plurality of risk values selected form the group comprising high risk values, medium risk values and low risk values”, Further “assigning the defined risk values to one of the plurality of virtual contributions based upon the selected monitory contribution”
Here the examiner cannot find any support for “high risk, medium risk or low risk” values. How are these defined and how does one define them to virtual contains if they do not know how to assign them. For example a search of the spec. for “high” does not reveal high risk. A search for risk likewise finds in 0005 “441.18 in risk fee profit”, how ever this is not support either.
Claims 2-5, and 7-12 are rejected because they depend from claim 1 directly or indirectly.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will not give any weight to the risk values. Applicant should clarify how these are selected any for what purpose so art can be applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5,7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent Publication to Hecht 2021/0295432
As per claim 1, Hecht discloses;
selecting, by each of a plurality of employees of an employer, a monetary contribution amount for contribution to the employee stock purchase plan, the selected monetary contribution amount comprising from zero to an amount less than a maximum allowable contribution under limits of the employee stock purchase plan,
Hecht(0011, to secure max discount is the idea, 0016)
The selected monetary contribution amount defined as one of a plurality of risk values selected from the group comprising high risk values, medium risk values and low risk values: (there is no actual support for “risk values selected from the group…”, the examiner does not know how to apply art based on the non-supported limitation.)
Hecht(0020, the contribution can be any amount, the idea is to help the employee to take advantage of the whole amount by taking a loan, 0025, 0031 example)
aggregating, via a transaction module executable by a processor residing on a server, the plurality of employees into one of a plurality of virtual containers, each of the plurality of employees having a unique identifier assigned thereto
(here “virtual containers are files)
Assigning the defined risk values to one of the plurality of virtual containers based upon the selected monetary contribution amount of each employee (there are no defined risk values supported by the spec, so ignore this limitation)
providing, via a monetary contribution module executable by the server processor, by a third party on behalf of each of the plurality of employees, a supplemental monetary contribution having a principal equal to one of a difference between the selected monetary contribution amount by each employee and the maximum allowable contribution under the employee stock purchase plan
Hecht(0031)
during an offering period, or a lesser principal amount as may be o by the employee wherein a sum of the selected contribution amount and the lesser principal amount is less than the maximum allowable contribution under the limits of the employee stock purchase plan;
Hecht(0016, “or” is a choice, allow the employe to get maximum matching)
transmitting the supplemental monetary contribution to the employer or each employee on behalf of a financial or ledger account funded or credited with the selected monetary contribution or the equivalent value of shares which when sold would fund an exercise price amount of each employee during the offering period, each financial or ledger account used to purchase shares of employer stock via the employee stock purchase plan at the end of the offering period,
or directly transmitting the supplemental monetary contribution to each employee,
Hecht(0021, supplemental funds…. “or” is a choice again, only one of is required)
sequencing via the transaction module order instructions for a plurality of trade positions based on the aggregated plurality of virtual containers (virtual containers appear to be files per 0034 of the applicant spec)
disbursing to a transfer agent, plan administrator or each employee directly, via a share disbursement module executable by the server processor, instructions, to issue, deliver or sell a number of shares of employer stock required to reimburse the supplemental monetary contribution and any applicable fees by the third party, fund the exercise price of an option or, sell an option at current market value disbursing, via the share disbursement module,
Hecht(0026-7, through 30, examples where the employee can take advantage of the employee stock program, here again it’s a choice of many “or’s)
to the third party from the employer or employee, the required number of shares of employer stock or other stock, or an equivalent amount of cash or other consideration; disbursing, via the share disbursement module, to each of the plurality of employees from the employer, a number of shares of employer stock or cash equal to a difference between the number of shares of employer stock acquired using an aggregate of the selected monetary contribution and the supplemental monetary contribution,
Hecht(0021, supplemental loan contribution is provided to the employee)
and the number of shares of employer stock disbursed to the third party in repayment of the supplemental monetary contribution remaining after using a portion of the shares to fund the exercise price, delivering, via the transaction module, the shares of employer stock acquired by the employee, or the equivalent amount of cash including applicable fees in connection with fulfillment of the employee's obligation to repay the supplemental monetary contribution; and returning, by the third party to the financial or ledger account of each of the plurality of employees or an aggregate account with similar purpose, proceeds from the sale of the shares of employer stock on the open market, or to the counterparty or otherwise, or
Hecht(0021. Repay the loan….. note the “or”, with choices of implementation)
returning shares, wherein the proceeds and value of shares are equivalent to the value of shares from the employee stock purchase plan that the employee would have received if the employee had initially contributed an amount equal to a sum of the selected monetary contribution and the supplemental monetary contribution, minus the repayment amount inclusive of fees related to the supplemental monetary contribution or use of shares to fund the exercise price.
Hecht(0023)
Here applicant and Hecht are attempting to provide similar results but with different processes. However, as claimed, the optional nature of the instant claims allow a broader interpretation. Hecht does not disclose virtual containers so to speak which may be files.
It would therefore have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosure of Hecht that relates to taking advantage of employee stock purchase plan discounts with well known summary files for each employee for the motivation of “tracking “employee ownership of employee stock” and resulting discounts. (0002)
As per claim 2 Hecht discloses; The method of claim 1 further comprising the steps of selling, via the transaction module, by the third party or ledger account of the employee; deducting the repayment amount of the supplemental monetary contribution plus applicable fees from the sale proceeds to reimburse the third party; and returning, by the third party to the financial or ledger account of each of the plurality of employees, any remaining sale proceeds or remaining shares from the sale transaction.
Hecht (0026-27)
As per claim 3 Hecht discloses; The method of claim 1 further comprising the steps of selling, via the transaction module, by the third party pursuant to settlement of a derivatives contract or other financial market transaction, at least a portion of the acquired shares of employer stock,
the sale of at least a portion of the shares of employer stock sufficient to fulfill the obligations to repay the supplemental monetary contribution according to the terms pursuant to which the supplemental monetary contribution was extended comprising
a sale transaction and allowing for a return of sale proceeds to the financial or ledger account of the employee,
As per claim 4 Hecht discloses; The method of claim 1 wherein the monetary contribution module further comprises an employee repository containing at least the selected monetary contribution amount. Hecht(funds go to escrow for the investment fig. 2)
As pre claim 5, Hecht discloses; The method of claim 1 wherein the step of providing a supplemental monetary contribution, by the third party on behalf of each of the plurality of employees, comprises:
providing a legal notice to the employee that in lieu of a supplemental monetary contribution a portion of shares granted under the option will be used by the third party to fund the exercise price of the option. (basically a 3rd party loan, 0040-41) Hecht (0016 3rd party loan)
As per claim 7 Hecht discloses; The method of claim 1 wherein the step of directly transmitting the supplemental monetary contribution to each employee comprises transmitting the supplemental monetary contribution either in one lump sum or in two or more installments.
Hecht(0027 lump sum, one or more could be one)
As per claim 8 Hecht discloses The method of claim 7 wherein the two or more installments are correlated with the employee's payroll cycle. Hecht(0023, 0026)
As per claim 9 Hecht discloses The method of claim 1 wherein in the event of a sale of an option that on the purchase date is in-the-money, the method further comprises allowing the third party to deliver shares of employer stock to a counterparty upon the counterparty's exercise of the option.
Hecht(claim 6)
As per claim 10 Hecht discloses The method of claim 2 wherein selling, by the third party, at least a portion of the acquired shares of employer stock comprises an open market sale on the financial exchange market.
Hecht(claim 12, open market is just a sale on the market)
As per claim 11 Hecht discloses The method of claim 3 wherein said repayment obligation includes fees.
Hecht(0026 fees for example are included)
12. (new) The method of claim 3 wherein said repayment obligation includes the sale of shares at a selected or agreed-to disposition price. Hecht(0026, an exercise price is agreed upon)
Response to Arguments
Applicant filed an amendment on 5/4/26. Claims 1-5 were pending. Claims 1, 2 are amended and claims 7-12 are new and thus, claims 1-5, and 7-12 are pending. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and non-persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
Double patenting- withdrawn in view of a terminal disclaimer.
35 USC 101-
Applicant respectfully submits that under Step 2A, claims 1-5 as a whole are not directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant respectfully submits that a technical problem solved by the present invention is how to implement, in a distributed computing environment, an efficient and scalable mechanism for processing and executing a large volume of parameterized transactions derived
from varied data sources, while reducing computational and network resource usage and ensuring synchronized execution across systems.
Here the argued limitations are not claimed and if there were would not be literally supported from the specification. Likewise, the improvement would have to be to the computer or technology, at least arguably.
The claims of the present invention present a technical solution to this problem in the context of parameterized securities transactions in the realm of network-based employee stock purchase plans (ESPPs).
Applicant submits that claim 1 provides a technical implementation involving a distributed computing architecture consisting of an employer server, a remote transaction server, and an exchange interface; and a data processing pipeline integrating real-time market data streams and employee-specific parameter sets.
Again, this is summarized rather than the literal supported element.
Further, claim 1 provides for algorithmic generation of execution strategies and data aggregation and batching mechanisms, thereby reducing network load and the number of transactions required, and utilizing synchronized multi- system processing.
Applicant submits that the use of grouped data structures and batched trade instructions produces the technical effect of a reduction in network transmissions and improved processing efficiency. Moreover, the invention introduces automated selection of execution modes based on computed metrics and real-time adaptation of system behavior, which constitutes a technical control mechanism that extends beyond a mere business rule or financial scheme. Finally, the synchronization across heterogeneous systems, such as payroll processing systems and trade execution systems, addresses a technical coordination problem that involves timing, data consistency, and system interoperability.
Judicial precedent has recognized that specific technologic modifications to solve a problem or improve the functioning of a known system generally produce patent-eligible subject matter.
In DDR Holdings', the court upheld the patent eligibility of claims "necessarily rooted in computer technology" that "overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." Id. at 1257.
Similarly, "claimed process[es] us[ing] a combined order of specific rules" that improved on existing technological processes were deemed patent-eligible in McRO.2 In addition, claims that were "directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in [a] self-referential table," were deemed eligible in Enfish.3
As stated in Alice and in the PTO's Nov. 2, 2016 Guidance, it is important to remember that, at some level, all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon or apply abstract ideas and the other exceptions. An invention is not ineligible simply because it involves an abstract concept. Rather, the claim as whole must be directed to an abstract idea. According to the Nov. 2, 2016 Guidance, "examiners should consider the claim as a whole under Step 2A .. ., and should not overgeneralize the claim or simplify it into its 'gist' or core principles, when identifying a concept as a judicial exception." (Bahr memo of Nov. 2, 2016, p. 2, emphasis added.) Here, Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner has overly simplified the claims by merely paraphrasing claim 1 without considering each claim as a whole. This is erroneous under Step 2A of the Alice test. Accordingly, the rejections are improper for this additional reason.
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 2McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
See memo to Patent Examining Corps dated Nov. 2, 2016, from Deputy Commissioner Robert Bahr. This memo discusses the recent McRO and BASCOM decision and provides additional information and clarification on the inquiry for identifying abstract ideas.
The following recent Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions reversed section 101 rejections due to insufficient demonstration by the examiner under either Alice Step 2A or 2B. While these decisions do not provide insights into the boundaries between patent-eligible and patent-ineligible subject matter, they are exemplary of the thoroughness of examination required under section 101:
* Exparte Murto: "the examiner's characterization of the claimed subject matter fails to encompass key
aspects of what is being claimed."
In the parent application, applicant amended the claims and received an allowance over this rejection. Notwithstanding the previous actions, Applicant believes they are entitled to the broader claims now presented which Applicant believes is definite in view of Applicant's teaching. Applicant rescinds any disclaimer in the parent application that may have resulted from the amendment to the claims of the parent application that lead to the allowance of the claims therein, and request that the Examiner reconsider the claims now presented in view of the rejection under 35 USC § 101 in the parent application.
Here the examiner has applied the most recent guidance. Arguments that this invention is analogous to DDR, Enfish, Games America are more directed to technical improvements in the software and technology rather than to the abstract idea such as a stock purchase plan arrangement.
Rejection under 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0295432 to Hecht ("Hecht" or " '432 Publ."). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
In parent application serial no. 15/910,639, filed on March 2, 2018, claims 1-14 were rejected under 35 USC § 103 as obvious in view of U.S. Patent App. Publ. No. 2016/0225081 to Hecht (the parent of the '432 Publ.) and U.S. Patent App. Publ. No. 2002/0194136 to Sullivan et al. Applicant similarly disagrees that the claims of the present application are obvious over Hecht for the reasons given below.
Applicant respectfully submits that Hecht fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 1 of the present invention, as amended, and therefore the present invention cannot be considered obvious.
Moreover, Applicant submits that one of ordinary skill in the art
* Exparte Brown: rejection of dependent claims reversed "because the examiner did not analyze any of the dependent claims.
would not be motivated to modify the method as taught by Hecht to arrive at the present invention, absent hindsight reasoning of the present disclosure.
Hecht teaches a method whereby an employer makes a subsidizing transaction upon which it charges the employee a corresponding fee or interest rate for participation in a contribution-based employee stock purchase plan. See Hecht at [0016], and [0023]-[0026]. The method further contemplates that the subsidizing transaction can be paid by the employee splitting any gains with the loaning entity.
Moreover, the method teaches a method whereby the loaning entity can withdraw their loan and pay the employee accumulated interest.
Applicant submits that Hecht neither teaches or suggests defining a selected monetary contribution amount of each of a plurality of employees as one of a plurality of risk values selected from the group comprising high risk values, medium risk values and low risk values, aggregating, via a transaction module, the plurality of employees into one of a plurality of virtual containers based on the selected monetary contribution amount; assigning the defined risk values to one of the plurality of virtual containers based upon the selected monetary contribution amount of each employee; and sequencing, via the transaction module, order instructions for a plurality of trade positions based on the aggregated plurality of virtual containers, as in the present invention of claim 1.
Here the amended portion directed to “high risk values… “ is not supported per the 35 USC 112(a) above.
Applicant further submits that Hecht teaches a method that is distinctly different than the invention of claim 1 of the present invention, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have the motivation to modify the method as taught by Hecht to arrive at the present invention, absent improper hindsight reasoning. The present invention does not teach hedging or
eliminating any market risk to the employee, and further, in contrast to Hecht, the present invention does not require any monetary contribution from the employer, and there is no cost associated with participation and all gains are returned to the employee. Moreover, the present invention, as claimed, does not teach a method whereby any returns would be categorized as capital gains rather than ordinary income.
Here broadly the language of the claim, “comprising from zero to an amount less than a maximum allowable…” includes ones where there is a monetary contribution . While applicant might contemplate that a supplemental contribution is required, it might not be. Further “high, Medium and low risk values” appears to not be supported so it’s hard to determine how to interpret a non supported limitation. It is noted in regards to loan, the 0023 of Hecht indicates that a loan is made to the employee to allow them to purchase the full amount of stock and thus capture the ESPP discount and gains.
Finally, the present invention does not allow for the capital provider to withdraw any loan amounts. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that if one of ordinary skill in the art were to modify the method as taught by Hecht the combination would not result in the present invention of claim 1, as amended.
Here applicant might be arguing what is not claimed because withdraw and loan are not claimed.
In the parent application, Applicant amended the claims and received an allowance over Hecht. Notwithstanding the previous actions, Applicant believes they are entitled to the broader claims now presented. Applicant rescinds any disclaimer in the parent application that may have resulted from the amendment to the claims of the parent application that lead to the allowance of the claims therein, and request that the Examiner reconsider the claims now presented in view of the reference(s) cited in the parent application.
Here the applicant should satisfy 35 USC 101 by showing a technical improvement and correct 35 USC 112(a), then the claims can be amended to overcome the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Accounting Confirmation of Executive Stock Option, IEEE 2010
Financing strategies for start-up companies, IEEE, 1996
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 BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights