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 .
Application Status
Present office action is in response to amendment filed 11/03/2025. Claims 1 and 14 are amended. Claims 1-24 are currently pending in the application.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
In regard to independent Claim 1, analyzed as representative claim:
Step 1: Statutory Category?
The preamble of independent Claim 1 recites “A learning management system comprising:”. Independent Claim 1 falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
The Revised 2019 Memorandum is applied as shown in the Independent Claim 1/Revised 2019 Guidance Table below to identify in italics the specific claim limitations found to recite an abstract idea and in bold the additional (non-abstract) claim limitations.
Independent Claim 1
Revised 2019 Guidance
A learning management system comprising:
A system falls under the statutory subject matter class of a machine. See
35 U.S.C. § 101 (“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.”).
[a] a device associated with a user comprising a display
The device comprising a display is a generic computer component.
[b] at least one processor in communication with the display;
The at least one processor in communication with the display is a generic computer component.
[c] and at least one non-transitory memory carrying instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the learning management system to perform operations comprising:
The at least one non-transitory memory and the at least one processor are generic computer components.
[d] generating a database arrangement of a plurality of nodes, wherein the plurality of nodes comprise memory storage configured to store data of respective content, and data of respective numeric attributes and weights representing a measure of the respective content relative to a metric of the plurality of nodes, wherein the metric comprises at least one of a difficulty or a theme of the respective content
The memory storage is a generic computer component.
Generating a database arrangement of a plurality of nodes a plurality of nodes is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
[e] generating a dimensional space based on the database arrangement of the plurality of nodes, wherein the dimensional space comprises a memory storage structure of three or more dimensions, and wherein each axis of the dimensional space represents a metric of the plurality of nodes;
The memory storage structure is a generic computer component.
Generating a dimensional space based on the database arrangement of the plurality of nodes… is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
[f] storing a first node of the plurality of nodes in the dimensional space in a first position in the dimensional space, wherein the first position corresponds to a position of the respective numeric attributes and weights of the first node relative to each axis of the dimensional space;
Storing a first node of the plurality of nodes in the dimensional space… is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data presentation). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
[g] storing a second node of the plurality of nodes in the dimensional space in a
second position in the dimensional space, wherein the second position corresponds to a position of the respective numeric attributes and weights of the second node relative to each axis of the dimensional space;
Storing a second node of the plurality of nodes in the dimensional space… is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data presentation). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
[h] selecting a first node of the plurality of nodes based at least in part on a user characteristic of a user
Selecting a first node of the plurality of nodes based at least in part on a user characteristic of a user is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
[i] causing display, via the display, of first content associated with the first node and a confidence input mechanism, wherein the confidence input mechanism is configured to receive a user input indicating a confidence level of the user;
The display and confidence input mechanism are generic computer components.
Causing display of first content … is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data presentation). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
[j] determining a confidence metric associated with the first content based on a user selection from the user of at least one confidence input mechanism
Determining a confidence metric associated with the first content based on a user selection from the user is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
The at least one confidence input mechanism is a generic computer component.
[k] evaluating a user input associated with the first content to determine a veracity of the user input associated with the first content;
Evaluating a user input associated with the first content is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
[l] wherein determining the veracity of the user input comprises determining a success of the user input in response to the first content;
Determining a success of the user input in response to the first content is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
[m] evaluating a user understanding of the first content based on a comparison of the veracity of the user input and the determined confidence metric
Evaluating a user understanding of the first content based on a comparison of the veracity of the user input and the determined confidence metric is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
[n] selecting the second node of the plurality of nodes based at least in part on the user input and the determined confidence metric
Selecting a second node of the plurality of nodes based at least in part on the user input and the determined confidence metric is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
[o] and causing display, at the device via the display, of a second content associated with the second node.
The device and display are generic computer components.
Causing display of a second content … is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data presentation). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
It is apparent that, other than reciting the additional non-abstract limitations of the device, display, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one processor, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one confidence input mechanism, memory storage and memory storage structure noted in the Independent Claim 1/Revised 2019 Guidance Table above, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human, in the mind, and/or using pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of the device, display, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one processor, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one confidence input mechanism, memory storage and memory storage structure does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A: Prong 1.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
The body of the claim, as noted in bold in the Independent Claim 1/Revised 2019 Guidance Table above, recites the additional limitations of the device, display, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one processor, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one confidence input mechanism, memory storage and memory storage structure which are recited at a high level of generality. The published Specification provides supporting exemplary descriptions of generic computer components: at least [0014]:… a display, one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory memories carrying instructions configured to cause the system to perform operations… at least one confidence input mechanism or a user confidence input …; [0016]:… the at least one confidence input mechanism includes a plurality of input mechanisms corresponding to respective answers to a multiple-choice question; [0018]:… using a machine learning algorithm based on the generated dimensional space …; [0023]:… the at least one confidence input mechanism comprises a slider configured to be manipulated by the user… The lack of details about the device, display, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one processor, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one confidence input mechanism, memory storage and memory storage structure indicates that these additional elements are generic, or part of generic computer elements performing or being used in performing the generic functions of displaying data and prompting for data. Even assuming arguendo the “at least one confidence input mechanism” is a slider, the slider is a well-known and routine graphic display element generally used to input/select data. Any improvements provided by the claim are in the abstract realm, and they are insufficient to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.”). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 90 (2012) (holding that a novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless patent-ineligible). Also see also Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151 (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”) (Emphasis omitted). The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The claimed invention merely implements the abstract idea using instructions executed on generic computer components, as shown in bold type in Table One, and as supported in the above noted pertinent portions of the Specification. Thus, the instant claim merely uses a programmed computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Step [g] (i.e., data presentation) as shown in Table One, reflects the type of extra-solution activity (i.e., in addition to the judicial exception) the courts have determined insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The instant claim as a whole merely uses computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Hence, the claim limitations amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment (a computer) in which to apply a judicial exception and, as such, cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Hence, as per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), the additional elements in representative claim 1, namely the device, display, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one processor, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one confidence input mechanism, memory storage and memory storage structure do not, either individually or in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Even assuming arguendo a slider input mechanism is used to indicate a confidence metric value it would still represent data presentation since it is a recitation of a generic display element used for inputting/selecting data which represent generic, routine, conventional computer activities. Because the Specification describes the device, display, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one processor, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one confidence input mechanism, memory storage and memory storage structure in general terms, without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in light of the published Specification, as noted above. The published Specification merely refers to the device, display, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one processor, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one confidence input mechanism, memory storage and memory storage structure at a high level of generality, merely in terms of their functions without any further elaboration, and suggests that associated technologies are preexisting, routine tools that are adapted to the abstract idea of the claim. More specifically, the published Specification, as noted above, supports a finding that the device, display, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one processor, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one confidence input mechanism, memory storage and memory storage structure are generic, or part of generic devices such as general purpose computers having generic components to perform the functions of [f] “storing a first node …”, [g] “storing a second node …” and [i], [o] “causing display…”, which represent insignificant pre-solution activity of data presentation, as noted in the Independent Claim 1/Revised 2019 Guidance Table above, that courts have determined to be insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims limitation do not recite any technical or technological implementations details for any of the claim steps, but rather functional results to be achieved by any and all means. The evidence presented supports a finding that the device, display, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one processor, at least one non-transitory memory, at least one confidence input mechanism, memory storage and memory storage structure were well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting technical or technological detail that confines the claim to a particular technical or technological solution to an identified problem other than based on the determination of a particular value. The claim limitations do not specify any particular manner for performing the claim steps that improves the relevant technology. Mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology. In other words, using computers as tools to perform functions that can be mental processes (an abstract idea) does not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (Finding “if [the] recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.”) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citations omitted).
As stated earlier, any improvements provided by the claim are to a process that is itself abstract. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The sequence of generating, generating, storing, storing, selecting, causing display, determining, evaluating, determining, evaluating, selecting and causing display is equally generic and conventional or otherwise held to be abstract. See Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715 (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission was abstract), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring was abstract). The ordering of the steps is, therefore, ordinary and conventional. The claims recite functions to be performed by any and all possible means, absent any technological details. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (The claims thus do not go beyond "stating [ the relevant] functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology."). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
In regard to independent Claim 14:
Independent claim 14 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium carrying instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising steps comparable to those of representative claim 1. Accordingly, independent claim 14 is rejected similarly to independent claim 1.
In regard to the dependent claims:
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-24 include all the limitations of respective independent claims 1 and 14 from which they depend and, as such, recite the same abstract idea(s) noted above for respective claims 11 and 14. Any additional claim element, for example, a plurality of input mechanisms, is recited as being used according to its conventional purpose in a conventional manner. The Examiner fails to see any claim activity used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. An invocation to use known technology in the manner it is intended to be used for its ordinary purpose is both generic and conventional. As per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), none of the limitations of claims 2-13 and 15-24 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. While dependent claims 2-13 and 15-24 may have a narrower scope than the representative claims, no claim contains an “inventive concept” that transforms the corresponding claim into a patent-eligible application of the otherwise ineligible abstract idea(s). Therefore, dependent claims 2-13 and 15-24 are not drawn to patent eligible subject matter as they are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections Under35 U.S.C. § 101
In regard to Applicant’s remark that “the Office Action has failed to meet the initial burden "to explain why a claim or claims are ineligible for patenting clearly and specifically, so that applicant has sufficient notice and is able to effectively respond." MPEP 2106.07”, the Examiner respectfully submits that contrary to Applicant’s argument, the detailed office actions presented to this point are consistent with Office Guidance and case law.
Applicant argues that “the Examiner has not identified how generating the database arrangement of the plurality of nodes and generating the dimensional space could possibly be directed to a fundamental economic principle, a commercial or legal interaction, management of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. That is, unlike an economic principle for mitigating settlement risk that directs human activity, the present claims are focused on how to make technical improvements to a database structure to more efficiently and effectively store and organize data”. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The rejections state that the mere nominal recitation of the additional claim elements “does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings”. Humans have long represented information in desired formats using pen and paper. Figure 3, disclosed as “a schematic illustration of a multi-dimensional space with multiple axes based upon a database of nodes of content modules” provides clear evidence of that fact.
Applicant’s arguments leading to the assertion that “the claimed database arrangement simply cannot be performed in the human mind and to the extent it
could be done, it would only be in its most simplistic form (similar to Synopsys)” are misplaced. In Synopsis, found not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Federal Circuit contrasted the claims to those at issue in TQP Development. Synopsis, Inc., v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing TQP Dev., LLC v. Intuit, No. 2:12–cv–180WCB, 2014 WL 651935 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2014)). The claims in TQP Development were to an encryption method for computer communication involving a several-step manipulation of data that, except in its most simplistic form, could not conceivably be performed in the human mind. TQP, 2014 WL 651935 at *1. Here, in contrast, the claims are not directed to “an encryption method for computer communication involving a several-step manipulation of data” but are instead focused on “causing display” of content stored (“… causing display, at the device via the display, of a second content associated with the second node”). As shown in figure 3, the claimed dimensional space of three or more dimensions is no more than “a schematic illustration of a multi-dimensional space” (published Specification at [0003-[0005], [0077]) which can easily be produced using pen and paper.
Applicant then argues that “the type of data storage structure as claimed is the same as has been deemed patentable under §101. In Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., the Federal Circuit held that claims reciting "a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory" is not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A” and that “[S]imilarly to the claims in Enfish, claim 1 is directed to a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory”. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Federal Circuit, in Enfish, rejected a § 101 challenge at the step one stage of the Mayo/Alice analysis because the claims at issue focused on "a specific type of data structure [i.e., a self-referential table for a computer database] designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory." Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339. Based on the "plain focus of the claims," the court, thus, held that the claims were directed to "a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table," and, as such, were more than a mere abstract idea. Id. at 1336. While the instant Specification discloses “data memory arrangement of the data processing arrangement a multi-dimensional space with multiple axes based upon the database of nodes of content” (¶ 26), the Specification does not include technical details regarding the data memory arrangement (“memory storage”) and, more importantly, does not identify improvements being applied to the claimed “memory storage” itself. In particular, the Examiner fails to find and Applicant fails to indicate any parallel between the instant claims and the claims in Enfish nor any comparable aspect in the claims that represents an improvement to computer functionality. Instead, here, as noted in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “The claims are not focused on how usage of the XML tags alters the database in a way that leads to an improvement in the technology of computer databases, as in Enfish”, in particular, the claims are not focused on how usage of the “memory storage” alters the database in a way that leads to an improvement in the technology of computer databases.
Applicant then argues that “As recited, claim 9 is not directed to an abstract idea as mapping the route of the user through the plurality of nodes in the dimensional space is an unconventional feature reciting a practical application”, that the “mapped route represents an unconventional method grounded in the claimed database structure to track the user's progress through the nodes of the dimensional space and assessing the knowledge of the user associated with the nodes”, that “claim 9 recites a practical application as the learning management system represents an improvement in the technical field of learning systems by improving the data representation of the learning progress of the user via the generated route in the dimensional space that describes the progress of the user relative to nodes that are relationally represented in the dimensional space”, that “In contrast, traditional learning systems do not represent a route of the user that describes the progress of the user through nodes and the relationship between the nodes that the user has progressed through.” and that “For at least the above reasons, claim 9 claims eligible subject matter. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection”. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is common knowledge that a learning map is “a graphic organizer that highlights the knowledge, skills, and big ideas that students should get from a lesson, unit, or course” and that “learning maps … keep students and teachers focused on what is important … offer a zoomed-out view of the unit … show the relationship between components of a unit … function as review guides and study tools”. See https://www.onatlas.com/blog/learning-map-benefits-teachers-students. Hence, at best, Applicant’s remarks reference an improved abstract idea. Applicant is respectfully reminded that an improved abstract idea nevertheless remains an abstract idea and, as such, unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Applicant then remarks, in regard to claim 10, that “determining a probability distribution of success based on at least the veracity of the user input associated with the first content and the determined confidence metric”. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant does not provide any evidence to support the above remark. Additionally, as noted earlier, even if Applicant’s argument is viewed as asserting an improvement, at best, similarly to SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018), “The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations (in the plot of a probability distribution function).”. Furthermore, Applicant is respectfully reminded that relying on a computer to perform routine tasks, e.g., receiving, manipulating, analyzing, storing, and transmitting data, even if performed more quickly or accurately, is not sufficient to render a claim patent eligible. OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”). Hence, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, claim 10 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101.
In view of the foregoing, the Examiner maintains that each of Applicant’s claims
1-24, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not
integrated into a practical application, and does not include an inventive concept. The
claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject
matter.
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 EDDY SAINT-VIL whose telephone number is (571)272-9845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30 AM -6:00 PM.
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, PETER VASAT can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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.
/EDDY SAINT-VIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715