DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-34 were previously, claims 1-7, 13, and 18-34 were withdrawn, and claims 8-12 and 14-17 were subject to the non-final rejection dated December 12, 2025. In the Response, submitted on June 12, 2026, claims 8-10, 12, 14, and 16-17 were amended, and claims 11 and 15 were cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-10, 12-14, and 16-34 are currently pending, and claims 8-10, 12, 14, and 16-17 are subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Page 37 of the Response, regarding the priority date are not found persuasive.
Claim 8 still recites features related to the booking threads, and claim 14 has be amended to introduce the features of the booking threads. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive, and the application is given the priority date of February 2, 2024.
Applicant’s remarks on Page 37 of the Response, regarding the previous objection to claim 10 has been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended claim.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 37-41 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, subject matter eligibility, have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
On Pages 38-39, Applicant argues “The claims are amended to recite ‘providing a real- time per-traveller booking status by the server for each traveller, the booking status of each of the travellers being updated on the graphical user interface individually and concurrently as each respective booking thread returns a booking result; and displaying, by a graphical user interface, the real-time per-traveller booking status updated individually and concurrently such that the graphical user interface reflects a current state of each incomplete booking across all concurrently executing booking threads during the booking process.’ The features are not a method of organizing human activity as the recitations are related to displaying real-time per-traveller booking statuses.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes “providing a…per-traveller booking status … for each traveller, the booking status of each of the travellers being updated…individually and concurrently as each respective booking …returns a booking result; and displaying…the…per-traveller booking status updated individually and concurrently such that ….[it] reflects a current state of each incomplete booking across all concurrently executing booking…during the booking process” reflect the abstract idea. The high-level recitation of generic components (e.g., “real-time” data, a graphical user interface, threads, and a server) does not take the claim out of the grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity.
On Pages 39-40, in discussing Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant argues the similarity of the claims with CoreWirless and states “the present invention recites a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. The present invention displays, by a graphical user interface, the real-time per- traveller booking status updated individually and concurrently such that the graphical user interface reflects a current state of each incomplete booking across all concurrently executing booking threads during the booking process. The present invention is therefore tied to a concrete technical improvement related to efficiency of the display of bulk booking related to policy and price restraints. The present invention displays a summary with a current status of each of the bookings, which is less than all of the bookings. The present invention integrates the practical application of providing a real-time per-traveller booking status by the server for each traveller, the booking status of each of the travellers being updated on the graphical user interface individually and concurrently as each respective booking thread returns a booking result, and displaying, by a graphical user interface, the real-time per-traveller booking status updated individually and concurrently.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that displaying per-traveller booking status updated individually and concurrently to reflect a current state of each incomplete booking across all concurrently executing booking… during the booking process, and displays a summary with a current status of each of the bookings, which is less than all of the bookings merely reflects the abstract idea. The “real-time” feature of the data and threads, amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Furthermore, the specification is silent on any improvement to the user interface itself. “a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.” (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
In CoreWireless, the claimed invention involves a graphical user interface (GUI) for mobile devices that displays an application summary of each application on the main menu while those applications are in an unlaunched state. The claims to computing devices were held patent eligible because the court concluded that they are directed to an improved user interface for electronic devices, not to the abstract idea of an index. The claims contain precise language delimiting the type of data to be displayed and how to display it, thus improving upon conventional user interfaces to increase the efficiency of using mobile devices. Here, neither the claims nor specification, disclose an improved user interface with claims containing precise language delimiting the type of data to be displayed and how to display it. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Lastly, similar to Trading Tech, it appears Applicant is arguing a business process improvement (“display[ing]… per- traveller booking status”) rather than in improvement to the underlying technology itself (i.e., “efficiency of the display” as alleged). See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). (“in Trading Tech…the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology”) (emphasis added). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Page 41 of the Response, in discussing Step 2B, Applicant states “The additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as displaying the real-time per- traveller booking status updated individually and concurrently is more than mere insignificant extra-solution activity as the display is controlled to show more than the alleged judicial exception, but instead shows an instantaneous growth rate of the fatigue damage sum that is repeatedly updated by repeatedly updating a stress history value. In summary, the present invention is integrated into a practical application (Step 2A) and also recites additional features that are not widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant field (Step 2B).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and as addressed above the additional elements amount to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Furthermore, Examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “an instantaneous growth rate of the fatigue damage sum that is repeatedly updated by repeatedly updating a stress history value”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, Examiner notes that displaying “an instantaneous growth rate of the fatigue damage sum that is repeatedly updated by repeatedly updating a stress history value” still merely reflects the abstract idea. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks on Page 42 of the Response, regarding the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s remarks on Page 42 of the Response, regarding the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, NZ600619, PCT/NZ2013/000100, 14/570,614, 15/392,378 and 17/211,380 fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. For example, but not limited to:
Claim 8 recites “… spawning a number of booking threads…. a process thread for booking, and multiple process threads are presented in parallel”, and
Claim 14 recites “spawn a number of booking threads…as each respective booking thread returns a booking results…concurrently executing booking threads during the booking process…”.
Examiner notes the prior filed applications are silent on features of booking threads. Therefore, claims 8-10, 12, 14, and 16-17 are given the priority date of this application of February 2, 2024.
Claim Objection
Claim 8 is objected to for reciting “the server” in the thirteenth limitation. The term “the server” lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as reciting a server. Claims 9-10 and 12 are objected to by virtue of dependency.
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 8-10, 12, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 8-10 and 12 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), and claims 14 and 16-17 are directed to a system comprising a server (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 8-10, 12, 14, and 16-17 all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 8 recites a method comprising: storing first stored information relating to policies of the organization; storing second stored information relating to details and travel policies of said individuals; and storing a bulk file relating to a travel event for the organization whereby at least a portion of the individuals are indicated as travellers for whom travel is to be arranged for the travel event; generating a group movement corresponding to the travel event of the travellers to the destination merging the organization travel policies, the details and travel policies of the travellers, and said additional travel policies of the organization, to generate and store a merged prioritized set of rules; in a case in which a flight is specified in the bulk file, checking whether or not the flight exists on a day and time specified; in a case in which the flight exists on the day and time specified, moving to a booking step; in a case in which the specified flight does not exist on the day and time specified, or in a case in which no flight is specified in the bulk file, retrieving a date and time window at the destination from the merged prioritized set of rules, then conducting a search for flights which correspond to the date and time window, selecting the flight most closely matching the date and time window and moving to the booking step; at the booking step, checking that the selected flight and available fare levels accord with the travel policies of the organization; in a case in which the selected fight and the available fare levels accord with the travel policies of the organization, creating individual bookings in accordance with the merged prioritized set of rules such that a travel request for each individual traveler is presented for booking; in a case in which the selected flight and the available fare levels do not accord with the policies of the organization, proceeding, to the next closest matching flight and repeats the check on the policies or the organization and repeats the booking process; providing a per-traveller booking status for each traveller, the booking status of each of the travellers being updated individually and concurrently as each respective booking returns a booking result; and displaying the per-traveller booking status updated individually and concurrently such that a current state of each incomplete booking across all concurrently executing booking reflected during the booking process, wherein the prioritized set of rules comprises: what flight should be taken, what fare levels are allowable, what should be booked or marked as waitlisted, whether interconnecting flights using an overnight stop are allowable, what level of accommodation is allowed at an overnight stop, what expenditure allowance is set, whether minimum fare levels can be overridden and to what extent ,what arranged fares are available, and what charter helicopter flights may be available from an airport destination.
The limitations recited above recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., commercial interactions, following rules or instructions). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The mere recitation of generic computer components (i) providing a booking system comprising computer hardware and software stored on a non-transient data storage medium of the computer hardware and executable by a processor of the computer hardware, and uploading to and storing in the booking system, (ii) threads/spawning a number of (booking) threads, process thread (for booking) and multiple process threads-e presented in parallel, (iii) connecting to a global distribution system (GDS), a GDS booking system, (iv) real-time data, (v) a graphical user interface, and (vi) a server, are recited at a high-level of generality, and do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 8 as a whole: (i) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; or (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The claim recites the additional elements of (i) providing a booking system comprising computer hardware and software stored on a non-transient data storage medium of the computer hardware and executable by a processor of the computer hardware, and uploading to and storing in the booking system, (ii) threads/spawning a number of (booking) threads, process thread (for booking) and multiple process threads-e presented in parallel, (iii) connecting to a global distribution system (GDS), a GDS booking system, (iv) real-time data, (v) a graphical user interface, and (vi) a server.
The additional elements (i), and (iv) – (vi) are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element (ii) is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computing threads) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element (iii) is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., global distribution systems) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., thread computing or GDS) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 9-10 and 12 merely recites details that narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claim 8, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 9-10 and 12are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 14 recites a system performing functions of: storing details of organization travel rules, details of the individuals, and travel policies of the individuals, reading a bulk file, the bulk file relating to a travel event defining a date and time window for arrival of the plurality of individuals at a destination, whereby at least a portion of the individuals are indicated as travellers for travel to a destination, for merging the stored organization travel rules and the additional travel policy properties of the organization in the bulk file, said merging occurring to generate and store a merged set of prioritized rules; and to locate one or more flights that correspond to the date and time window, then to select a flight most closely matching the date and time window; to check that the flight and available fare levels accords with the policies of the organization; and operating for booking travel for each one of said travellers and book travel for each one for the travellers to the destination as individual booking in accordance with the merged set of rules, and on successful completion, output the bookings to one or more of the organization and each of the individuals, and provide per-traveller booking status for each traveller, the booking status of each of the travellers being updated on the individually and concurrently as each respective booking returns a booking result, and display the per-traveller booking status updated individually and concurrently such that the a current state of each incomplete booking across all concurrently executing booking during the booking process is reflected, wherein parsing the bulk file according to the predetermined categories of mandatory information to determine: a) for each traveller, whether said traveller is an individual whose details and travel policies are stored, indicate any travellers whose details and travel policies are not so stored, and b) whether all mandatory information is present, and where mandatory information is missing, take remedial action including one or more of querying for: the missing information, requesting input of the missing information, or inputting a suggestion for the missing information.
The limitations recited above recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., commercial interactions, following rules or instructions). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The mere recitation of generic computer components (i) a server of a booking system, in communication with an information storage system, the server having a non-transitory computer-readable data storage with software stored therein, the software, upon execution by the server, (ii) the server operating as a bulk file parser that reads and operates upon a bulk file uploaded to the server of the booking system, (iii) the server operates as a rule merger, a search tool, a checking tool, and a booking tool, (iv) a graphical user interface, (v) real-time data, and (vi) spawning booking threads, executing threads, are recited at a high-level of generality, and do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 14 as a whole: (i) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; or (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The claim recites the additional elements of (i) a server of a booking system, in communication with an information storage system, the server having a non-transitory computer-readable data storage with software stored therein, the software, upon execution by the server, (ii) the server operating as a bulk file parser that reads and operates upon a bulk file uploaded to the server of the booking system, (iii) the server operates as a rule merger, a search tool, a checking tool, and a booking tool, (iv) a graphical user interface, (v) real-time data, and (vi) spawning booking threads.
The additional elements of (i) –(v) are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element (vi) is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computing threads) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computing threads) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 15 merely recites details that narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claim 14, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 15 is also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Claim 16 recites outputting the bookings by performing at least one of: generating a listing all the bookings for the travellers, and generating separate messages to each traveller of the travellers with information of booking details of the traveller – which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea.
Claim 16 recites the additional elements of generating an email/emails, which is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, amounts to no more than: reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional element, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 17 merely recites details that narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claims 14 and 16, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 17 is also ineligible.
Allowable over Prior Art
Claims 8-10, 12, 14 and 16-17 are allowable over the prior art, but subject to the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. The prior art references do not teach or suggest the entirety of the limitations (in combination) of the independent claims.
The closest prior art for claims 8 and 14 includes:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0153348 to Garback (hereinafter “Garback”). Garback discloses a system for managing travel within a sponsoring organization is provided. A database can further include a travel policy file which contains information on preselected airline carriers, preselected room accommodation providers, and preselected ground transportation providers. A database also contains a number of separate data files. A group member data file is provided for each individual member of the sponsoring organization. The group member file contains group member information, such as personal data about the traveler and, optionally, frequent flier membership.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0053122 to Xu et al. (hereinafter “Xu”). Xu discloses a group booking function for accommodation to book rooms a group of employees in a bulk fashion without having to do individual bookings.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0309500 to Arunachalam (hereinafter “Arunachalam”). Arunachalam discloses a “bulk file” is a data structure that allows a user to submit multiple data transactions (e.g., payment records) in a single file upload. The bulk file processing, utilizing CPU capabilities, typically includes receiving and parsing the bulk file.
U.S. Patent No. 5,021,953 to Webber et al. (hereinafter “Webber). Webber discloses automatically taking into account details of a preset corporate travel policy, as well as of individual preferences, for booking travel.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0134372 to Ruis Lopez et al. (hereinafter “Ruis Lopez”). Ruis Lopez discloses a travel management system that provides a centralized location for storing data relating to user and corporate profiles, user and corporate preferences, corporate agreements, and corporate travel policies.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0206363 to Gove (hereinafter “Gove”). Gove discloses enabling a user to search and book travel for multiple people from multiple locations around the country/globe to a single destination or series of destinations.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0254365 to Yanagisawa (hereinafter “Yanagisawa”). Yanagisawa discloses a block readout module of transmission side data communication device that reads out a file of bulk data from storage unit, divides the bulk data into plural data blocks, and hands over the data blocks to a data packet mapping module.
Prior Art
The following prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
WO 2001061607A1 to Rogers et al. (hereinafter “Rogers”). Rogers discloses corporate travel managers using computers to develop models of the airline markets in which their corporations buy tickets.
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 Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is 571-270-0192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9:30 AM – 6:30 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on Monday – Friday at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/RUPANGINI SINGH/
Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights