DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to papers filed on 11/12/2025 and 11/26/2025.
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 .
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, while the claims herein are directed to a method and/or system, which could be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes), the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, the claims recite, in part, storing a plurality of content bids, wherein each content bid comprises bid information including a content item, and position information and budget information associated with the content item; receiving, from a publisher, a position group request, wherein the position group request comprises a location identifier and position group configuration information specifying at least two positions and a mediation protocol identifier indicative of a mediation protocol comprising one or more executable operations; conducting an auction of the plurality of content bids using the position group configuration information specifying the at least two positions to mediate the auction according to the one or more executable operations in the mediation protocol indicated by the mediation protocol identifier specified in the position group request, wherein the auction evaluates a first combination of bids, from the plurality of content bids, corresponding to a combination of content items in response to the position group request comprising the position group configuration information specifying the at least two positions; determining a winning bid combination from the auction, wherein the winning bid combination comprises the first combination of bids; and sending, to a location identified by the location identifier, one or more winning content item specified in the winning bid combination.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites, in part, storing a plurality of content bids, wherein each content bid comprises bid information including a content item, and position information associated with the content item; receiving, from a publisher, a position group request, wherein the position group request comprises configuration information comprising a location identifier and a first mediation rule and a second mediation rule, wherein the first mediation rule comprises a first plurality of position group definitions and a first mediation protocol identifier indicative of a first mediation protocol comprising one or more first executable operations, and wherein the second mediation rule comprises a second plurality of position group definitions and a second mediation protocol identifier indicative of a second mediation protocol comprising one or more second executable operations; conducting an auction of the plurality of content bids comprising a first auction round and a second auction round, wherein the auction evaluates a first combination of bids corresponding to a combination of content items in response to the position group request comprising the first plurality of position group definitions and the second plurality of position group definitions, wherein conducts the first auction round by mediating a first plurality of position groups defined by the first plurality of position group definitions using the one or more first executable operations of the first mediation protocol indicated by the first mediation protocol identifier and wherein conducts the second auction round by mediating a second plurality of position groups defined by the second plurality of position group definitions using the one or more executable operations of the second mediation protocol indicated by the second mediation protocol identifier; determining a first winning bid from the first auction round, wherein the first winning bid is from the plurality of content bids; determining a second winning bid from the second auction round, wherein the second winning bid is from the plurality of content bids; and sending, to a location identified by the location identifier, a first winning content item specified in the first winning bid; and sending, to the location identified by the location identifier, a second winning content item specified in the second winning bid.
The limitations, as drafted and detailed above, are directed towards performing an auction for advertising spots and sending the winning advertising to the display location, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and more specifically commercial interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of content serving platform (claims 1, 9, 13, a “platform” is not clearly a hardware device), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 13), computer-executable instructions (claim 13, merely software), and processor (claim 13). The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of storing, receiving, conducting, determining, and sending) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There are no additional functional limitations to be considered under prong two.
Accordingly, the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using content serving platform (claims 1, 9, 13, a “platform” is not clearly a hardware device), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 13), computer-executable instructions (claim 13, merely software), and processor (claim 13) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent- eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat' l Ass' n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computer (see Applicant specification Paragraphs 0028-0036); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
The dependent claims 2-8, 10-12, and 14-20 appear to merely limit specifics of the winning content item, specifics of the mediation protocol, used of a mediation protocol identifier, specifics of the mediation protocol identifier, specifics of the budget information, and specifics of the position group configuration information, and therefore only limit the application of the idea, and not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The content serving platform (claims 1, 9, 13, a “platform” is not clearly a hardware device), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 13), computer-executable instructions (claim 13, merely software), and processor (claim 13) are each functional generic computer components that perform the generic functions of storing, receiving, conducting, determining, and sending, all common to electronics and computer systems.
Applicant's specification does not provide any indication that the content serving platform (claims 1, 9, 13, a “platform” is not clearly a hardware device), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 13), computer-executable instructions (claim 13, merely software), and processor (claim 13) are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (U.S. Pub No. 2008/0262917) in view of Biggs (U.S. Pub No. 2011/0047026).
Regarding claims 1, 13, Green teaches storing, at a content serving platform, a plurality of content bids, wherein each content bid comprises bid information including a content item, and position information and budget information associated with the content item (Paragraphs 0022, bid data, the ad is the content item, 0058, specification of dimensions is equivalent to “position information, 0067-0070, budget information); receiving, at the content serving platform and from a publisher, a position group request, wherein the position group request comprises a location identifier and position group configuration information specifying a mediation protocol identifier indicative of a mediation protocol comprising one or more executable operations (Paragraphs 0031-0036, 0072-0074, publisher ad call is equivalent to a “position group request”, SAS represents a “location identifier”, and the format, acceptable parameters, and other content requirements represents “position group configuration information”, any way of identifying the mediation protocol represents a “mediation protocol identifier” such as Paragraph 0037 which states “Bravo publisher requests AdECN to return an AdECN ad if the minimum CPM is met or exceeded”, which is an example of an “executable operation”); conducting, by the content serving platform, an auction of the plurality of content bids using the position group configuration information to mediate the auction according to the one or more executable operations in the mediation protocol (Paragraphs 0022, CPM is an example of mediation protocol, 0037, “Bravo publisher requests AdECN to return an AdECN ad if the minimum CPM is met or exceeded”, which is an example of an “executable operation”, 0058, “Publishers will create spots with specific dimensions and only ads of matching dimensions will appear on those sites”); determining, by the content serving platform, a winning bid from the auction, wherein the winning bid is from the plurality of content bids (Paragraph 0022); and sending, to a location identified by the location identifier, a winning content item specified in the winning bid (Paragraphs 0022, 0036).
Green does not appear to specify position group configuration information specifying at least two positions, and wherein the auction evaluates a first combination of bids, from the plurality of content bids, corresponding to a combination of content items in response to the position group request comprising the position group configuration information specifying the at least two positions, and determining a winning bid combination comprising the first combination of bids. However, Biggs teaches position group configuration information specifying at least two positions (Paragraph 0022, Figure 1), and wherein the auction evaluates a first combination of bids, from the plurality of content bids, corresponding to a combination of content items in response to the position group request comprising the position group configuration information specifying the at least two positions (Paragraphs 0030-0035), and determining a winning bid combination comprising the first combination of bids (Paragraphs 0030-0035). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to specify at least two positions in a position group configuration and to consider combinations of content items with regard to the at least two positions when running an auction since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 2, 10, 14, Green does not appear to specify wherein the winning bid comprises the first combination of bids and the winning content item comprises the combination of content items. However, Biggs teaches wherein the winning bid comprises the first combination of bids and the winning content item comprises the combination of content items (Paragraphs 0012, 0017). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to consider combinations of content items when running an auction, in order to optimize and obtain the highest yield or revenue from the combination of placements.
Regarding claims 3, 11, 15, Green teaches the mediation protocol is a ranked score protocol (Paragraph 0022, the bid is a “score”, and the highest bid being the winner represents a ranked big and is an example of a “ranked score”).
Green does not appear to specify determining for each position group of a plurality of position groups, a highest ranked score. However, Biggs teaches determining for each position group of a plurality of position groups, a highest ranked score (Paragraphs 0030-0035). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to specify at least two positions in a position group configuration and to consider combinations of content items with regard to the at least two positions when running an auction since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 4, 12, 16, Green teaches the meditation protocol is an eCPM protocol, where CPM is cost-per-thousand (Paragraph 0022).
Green does not appear to specify determining for each position group of a plurality of position groups a highest eCPM sum total. However, Biggs teaches determining for each position group of a plurality of position groups a highest CPC sum total (Paragraph 0035). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to specify at least two positions in a position group configuration and to consider combinations of content items with regard to the at least two positions when running an auction since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 5, 17, Green teaches the position group configuration information comprises a mediation protocol identifier and wherein the content serving platform conducts the auction according to the mediation protocol based on the mediation protocol identifier (Paragraph 0022, any way of identifying the mediation protocol represents a “mediation protocol identifier”).
Regarding claims 6, 18, Green teaches the mediation protocol identifier indicates either a ranked score protocol or an eCPM protocol, where CPM is cost-per-thousand (Paragraph 0022, any way of identifying the mediation protocol represents a “mediation protocol identifier”).
Regarding claims 7, 19, Green teaches the budget information comprises ceiling price (CPM) information (Paragraph 0070, $100 per hour is a “ceiling price”).
Regarding claims 8, 20, Green teaches a first position group definition comprising a first specified position and a second specified position; and a second position group definition comprising a third specified position and a fourth specified position (Paragraphs 0031-0036, 0072-0074, the format, acceptable parameters, and other content requirements represents “position group configuration information”, the prior art discusses running auctions for any number of ad spots listed by any number of publishers to be won by any number of participating advertisers, and therefore the system can be used multiple times for multiple group definitions and positions).
Regarding claim 9, Green teaches storing, at a content serving platform, a plurality of content bids, wherein each content bid comprises bid information including a content item, and position information associated with the content item (Paragraphs 0022, bid data, the ad is the content item, 0058, specification of dimensions is equivalent to “position information, 0067-0070, budget information); receiving, at the content serving platform and from a publisher, a position group request, wherein the position group request comprises configuration information comprising a location identifier and a first mediation rule and a second mediation rule, wherein the first mediation rule comprises a first plurality of position group definitions and a first mediation protocol identifier indicative of a first mediation protocol comprising one or more first executable operations, and wherein the second mediation rule comprises a second plurality of position group definitions and a second mediation protocol identifier indicative of a second mediation protocol comprising one or more second executable operations (Paragraphs 0031-0036, 0072-0074, publisher ad call is equivalent to a “position group request”, SAS represents a “location identifier”, and the format, acceptable parameters, and other content requirements represents “position group configuration information”, any way of identifying the mediation protocol represents a “mediation protocol identifier” such as Paragraph 0037 which states “Bravo publisher requests AdECN to return an AdECN ad if the minimum CPM is met or exceeded”, which is an example of an “executable operation”, the prior art discusses running auctions for any number of ad spots listed by any number of publishers to be won by any number of participating advertisers, and therefore the system can be used multiple times for multiple group definitions and positions); conducting, by the content serving platform, an auction of the plurality of content bids comprising a first auction round and a second auction round, wherein the content serving platform conducts the first auction round by mediating a first plurality of position groups defined by the first plurality of position group definitions using the one or more first executable operations of the first mediation protocol indicated by the first mediation protocol identifier and wherein the content serving platform conducts the second auction round by mediating a second plurality of position groups defined by the second plurality of position group definitions using the one or more second executable operations of the second mediation protocol indicated by the second mediation protocol identifier (Paragraphs 0022, CPM, CPC, etc. are examples of mediation protocol, 0037, “Bravo publisher requests AdECN to return an AdECN ad if the minimum CPM is met or exceeded”, which is an example of an “executable operation”, 0058, “Publishers will create spots with specific dimensions and only ads of matching dimensions will appear on those sites”, the prior art discusses running auctions for any number of ad spots listed by any number of publishers to be won by any number of participating advertisers, and therefore the system can be used multiple times for multiple group definitions and positions); determining, by the content serving platform, a first winning bid from the first auction round, wherein the first winning bid is from the plurality of content bids (Paragraph 0022); determining, by the content serving platform, a second winning bid from the second auction round, wherein the second winning bid is from the plurality of content bids (Paragraph 0022, the prior art discusses running auctions for any number of ad spots listed by any number of publishers to be won by any number of participating advertisers, and therefore the system can be used multiple times for multiple group definitions and positions); and sending, to a location identified by the location identifier, a first winning content item specified in the first winning bid (Paragraphs 0022, 0036); and sending, to the location identified by the location identifier, a second winning content item specified in the second winning bid (Paragraphs 0022, 0036, the prior art discusses running auctions for any number of ad spots listed by any number of publishers to be won by any number of participating advertisers, and therefore the system can be used multiple times for multiple group definitions and positions).
Green does not appear to specify wherein the auction evaluates a first combination of bids corresponding to a combination of content items in response to the position group request comprising the first plurality of position group definitions and the second plurality of position group definitions. However, Biggs teaches the auction evaluates a first combination of bids corresponding to a combination of content items in response to the position group request comprising the first plurality of position group definitions and the second plurality of position group definitions (Paragraphs 0030-0035). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to evaluate a combination of bids to a request comprising first and second pluralities of group definitions since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “The present claims do not recite a judicial exception, as they do not recite a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or subject matter within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”. However, Applicant provides no reasoning as to exactly why the claims do not recite a judicial exception. As explained in the rejection above, the claims clearly recite a commercial interaction, as well as advertising, which places the claims within the realm of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Without any reasoning to the contrary, Examiner sees no reason that this would not still be the case.
Applicant argues “the present claims provide for improvements to the technical field of multi-position web auctioning, and are indicative of integration into a practical application”. Applicant elaborates on this by citing Paragraph 0003 of the instant specification and arguing “The specification discusses some of the problems and/or challenges in the technical field, such as the bidding opportunities may be limited or overly constrained by the display portion configuration and the auction itself, resulting in displays that are not optimized in their presentation of content and in less flexibility for publishers and content providers to tailor their bidding opportunities and bids". Applicant further elaborates by citing Paragraph 0038 of the instant specification and arguing “The specification also discusses some of the improvements made to the technical field via the solution(s) of the instant application, such as systems and methods are described for conducting digital content auctions based on position groups of digital content items, rather than individual positions. The disclosed systems and methods allow for greater flexibility in the operations of digital content auctions and displays. Therefore, application of the disclosed systems and methods to various digital content models as discussed in further detail below serves to improve flexibility and efficiencies of the digital content auction and display process". However, any alleged improvements in the auction system or bid flexibility is merely an improvement to commercial interactions, which is still just an abstract idea. In the SAP decision (See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), the courts found that an improvement made to the abstract idea is not patent eligible. SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
Applicant argues “Generic computers do not perform the operations as recited in the claims” and “The claims do not merely recite an abstract idea of outputting data along with the requirement to perform it on a computer. Many additional elements are recited, in a non- conventional arrangement. Thus, the ordered combination of claim limitations provides a particular, practical application which is a patent eligible application”. However, the specification clearly outlines the computers involved in the claimed invention to merely be general purpose (See instant specification paragraphs 0028-0036). The only additional elements in the claims are the recitation of those general purpose computer elements, and there is no unconventional arrangement of those elements present in the claim language. Rather, the elements are directed to a server or “platform” performing multiple operations. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Green does not seem to provide for a publisher sending a position group request that specifies a mediation protocol identifier indicative of a mediation protocol comprising one or more executable operations, for example. Instead, Green seems to provide for the publisher specifying a price floor, which can be measured in CPM, for example”. However, the claims merely require one or more “executable operations”. Merriam Webster Online Dictionary defines “execute” as “to carry (something) out fully : to put (something) completely into effect”, and “executable” as “capable of being executed”. Specifying a price floor in which to conduct the auction represents specifying an executable operation of implementing the auction operation with a specific price floor.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BEKERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 9PM-3PM EST M, T, TH, F.
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, WASEEM ASHRAF can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/MICHAEL BEKERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621