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
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 14, 2026 has been entered.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 8, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a system for generating trade recommendations. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites a system for generating trade recommendations. The claim recites the steps: mapping the plurality of first data fields to the plurality of second data fields; generating a plurality of integrated data records by collating the plurality of transaction data records and the plurality of trade data records; merging the plurality of regulatory data records into the plurality of integrated data records; deriving a plurality of key performance index (KPI) values for each merged integrated data record; analyzing user interaction pattern to determine a KPI value most frequently accessed by the user for a characteristic; generating an inference based on the displayed KPI value associated with the most frequently accessed KPI value; and generating a recommendation associated with the inference, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities of behaviors, business relations.
The claim recites the steps of: mapping the plurality of first data fields to the plurality of second data fields; generating a plurality of integrated data records by collating the plurality of transaction data records and the plurality of trade data records; merging the plurality of regulatory data records into the plurality of integrated data records; deriving a plurality of key performance index (KPI) values for each merged integrated data record; analyzing user interaction pattern to determine a KPI value most frequently accessed by the user for a characteristic; generating an inference based on the displayed KPI value associated with the most frequently accessed KPI value; and generating a recommendation associated with the inference, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor/automatically”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “obtaining a plurality of transaction data records from a first data source, obtaining a plurality of trade data records from a second data source, obtaining a plurality of regulatory data records from a third data source; displaying the determined KPI value in a prominent position in the user interface relative to other KPI valued for the same characteristic; the prominent position inducing a top of the user interface; and displaying the recommendation on a user interface including automatically arranging the recommendation on the user interface based on the inference.” The claim also recites that the steps of “obtaining a plurality of transaction data records…; obtaining a plurality of trade data records…; obtaining a plurality of regulatory data records…; mapping the plurality of first data fields to the plurality of second data fields; generating a plurality of integrated data records by collating the plurality of transaction data records and the plurality of trade data records; merging the plurality of regulatory data records into the plurality of integrated data records; deriving a plurality of key performance index values for each merged integrated data record; displaying the plurality of KPI values…; analyzing user interaction patterns to determine a KPI value…; displaying the determined KPI value in a prominent position…; generating an inference associated with the plurality of key performance index values; generating a recommendation associated with the inference; and displaying the recommendation on a user interface” are performed by a processor.
The additional elements “obtaining a plurality of transaction data records from a first data source, obtaining a plurality of trade data records from a second data source, obtaining a plurality of regulatory data records from a third data source; displaying the determined KPI value in a prominent position in the user interface relative to other KPI valued for the same characteristic; the prominent position inducing a top of the user interface; and displaying the recommendation on a user interface including automatically arranging the recommendation on the user interface based on the inference” are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to the user interface, they are just merely used as general means for collecting and displaying data. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Further, the steps of “obtaining a plurality of transaction data records…; obtaining a plurality of trade data records…; obtaining a plurality of regulatory data records…; mapping the plurality of first data fields to the plurality of second data fields; generating a plurality of integrated data records by collating the plurality of transaction data records and the plurality of trade data records; merging the plurality of regulatory data records into the plurality of integrated data records; deriving a plurality of key performance index values for each merged integrated data record; displaying the plurality of KPI values…; analyzing user interaction patterns to determine a KPI value…; displaying the determined KPI value in a prominent position…; generating an inference associated with the plurality of key performance index values; generating a recommendation associated with the inference; and displaying the recommendation on a user interface”, are recited as being performed by the processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality. In the limitations “obtaining a plurality of transaction data records…; obtaining a plurality of trade data records…; obtaining a plurality of regulatory data records…; displaying the determined KPI value in a prominent position…, the prominent position including a top of the user interface; and displaying the recommendation on a user interface”, the processor is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations “mapping the plurality of first data fields to the plurality of second data fields; generating a plurality of integrated data records by collating the plurality of transaction data records and the plurality of trade data records; merging the plurality of regulatory data records into the plurality of integrated data records; deriving a plurality of key performance index values for each merged integrated data record; analyzing user interaction patterns to determine a KPI value…; generating an inference associated with the plurality of key performance index values; and generating a recommendation associated with the inference”, the processor is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor, a memory, and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding 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).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements “obtaining a plurality of transaction data records from a first data source, obtaining a plurality of trade data records from a second data source, obtaining a plurality of regulatory data records from a third data source; displaying the determined KPI value in a prominent position in the user interface relative to other KPI valued for the same characteristic; the prominent position inducing a top of the user interface; and displaying the recommendation on a user interface including automatically arranging the recommendation on the user interface based on the inference” were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements of “obtaining a plurality of transaction data records from a first data source, obtaining a plurality of trade data records from a second data source, obtaining a plurality of regulatory data records from a third data source; displaying the determined KPI value in a prominent position in the user interface relative to other KPI valued for the same characteristic; the prominent position inducing a top of the user interface; and displaying the recommendation on a user interface including automatically arranging the recommendation on the user interface based on the inference” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processor to perform limitations “obtaining a plurality of transaction data records…; obtaining a plurality of trade data records…; obtaining a plurality of regulatory data records…; mapping the plurality of first data fields to the plurality of second data fields; generating a plurality of integrated data records by collating the plurality of transaction data records and the plurality of trade data records; merging the plurality of regulatory data records into the plurality of integrated data records; deriving a plurality of key performance index values for each merged integrated data record; displaying the plurality of KPI values…; analyzing user interaction patterns to determine a KPI value…; displaying the determined KPI value in a prominent position…; generating an inference associated with the plurality of key performance index values; generating a recommendation associated with the inference; and displaying the recommendation on a user interface”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 15, Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent claim 1 directed to a method, independent claim 15 directed to a medium, are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 8.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 9, and 16, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein each integrated data record of the plurality of integrated data records has a plurality of integrated data fields, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 8. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 3, 10, and 16, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the plurality of integrated data fields comprises a country, an industry, and a product, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 8. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 4, 11, and 17, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting assigning a set of weights to the plurality of key performance index values; deriving a plurality of weighted key performance index values by applying the set of weight to the plurality of key performance index values; and combining the plurality of weighted key performance index values to generate a total key performance index value…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 8. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 5, 12, and 18, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein merging the plurality of regulatory data records into the plurality of integrated data records comprises analyzing the plurality of regulatory data records and matching the plurality of regulatory data records to the plurality of integrated data records, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 8. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 6, 13, and 19, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein generating the inference associated with the plurality of key performance index values comprises: generating a plurality of trade scenarios…; recognizing a pattern in the plurality of key performance index values associated with each trade scenario of the plurality of trade scenarios; and generating the inference for each trade scenario of the plurality of trade scenarios based on the recognized pattern., that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 8. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 7, 14, and 20, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting checking the first data source, the second data source, and the third data source for updates associated with the user input; updating the plurality of key performance index values based on the updates; updating the inference based on the updated plurality of key performance index values; and generating an updated recommendation based on the updated inference, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 8. Moreover, the claims recite the additional element receiving a user input through the user interface, which is mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05 (See claim 8 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
5. No prior arts were applied to the claims because the Examiner is unaware of any prior arts, alone or in combination, which disclose at least the limitations of “merging the plurality of regulatory data records into the plurality of integrated data records; deriving a plurality of key performance index values for each merged integrated data record of the plurality of merged integrated data records; generating an inference associated with the plurality of key performance index values; generating a recommendation associated with the inference; and displaying the recommendation on a user interface including automatically arranging the recommendation on the user interface based on the inference” recited in the independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
I. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Amendment overcomes the rejection.
Accordingly, the 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
II. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more (see more details above).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that “The Claims Do Not Recite an Abstract Idea”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the claims The claim recites a system for generating trade recommendations. The claim recites the steps: mapping the plurality of first data fields to the plurality of second data fields; generating a plurality of integrated data records by collating the plurality of transaction data records and the plurality of trade data records; merging the plurality of regulatory data records into the plurality of integrated data records; deriving a plurality of key performance index (KPI) values for each merged integrated data record; analyzing user interaction pattern to determine a KPI value most frequently accessed by the suer for a characteristic; generating an inference based on the displayed KPI value associated with the most frequently accessed KPI value; and generating a recommendation associated with the inference, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities of behaviors, business relations.
Moreover, the claim recites the steps of: mapping the plurality of first data fields to the plurality of second data fields; generating a plurality of integrated data records by collating the plurality of transaction data records and the plurality of trade data records; merging the plurality of regulatory data records into the plurality of integrated data records; deriving a plurality of key performance index (KPI) values for each merged integrated data record; analyzing user interaction pattern to determine a KPI value most frequently accessed by the user for a characteristic; generating an inference based on the displayed KPI value associated with the most frequently accessed KPI value; and generating a recommendation associated with the inference (analyzing data), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor/automatically”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Therefore, the claims recite an Abstract Idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that “The Claims are Integrated into a Practical Application”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
The additional elements “obtaining a plurality of transaction data records from a first data source, obtaining a plurality of trade data records from a second data source, obtaining a plurality of regulatory data records from a third data source; displaying the determined KPI value in a prominent position in the user interface relative to other KPI valued for the same characteristic; the prominent position inducing a top of the user interface; and displaying the recommendation on a user interface including automatically arranging the recommendation on the user interface based on the inference” are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to the user interface, they are just merely used as general means for collecting and displaying data.
Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvements to the technology, improvements to the functioning of the computer, the processor, the memory, the user interface or other technology. They do not recite a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claims, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that “The Claims Recite "Significantly More" Than Any Alleged Abstract Idea”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements of “obtaining a plurality of transaction data records from a first data source, obtaining a plurality of trade data records from a second data source, obtaining a plurality of regulatory data records from a third data source; displaying the determined KPI value in a prominent position in the user interface relative to other KPI valued for the same characteristic; the prominent position inducing a top of the user interface; and displaying the recommendation on a user interface including automatically arranging the recommendation on the user interface based on the inference” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
8. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Levine et al. (US 2008/0162378) disclose a method and system for providing a graphical user interface (GUI) for electronic trading with display of an estimated execution position in a current market depth display list of electronic trades.
Rutt et al. (US 2008/0052220) disclose a system and method of providing control of prices in an on screen window having a price held for further transactions on an interface for traders of financial instruments. The interface contains a display of products for trading and respective prices for bids and offers.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights