DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to correspondence filed 14 November 2025 in regard to application no. 18/439,207. Claims 1-14 are pending and are considered below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims now include the use of a “deep-linking protocol”. There is no support for this in the originally filed application and it therefore constitutes impermissible new matter. For the purpose of compact prosecution the Examiner will interpret this to mean that a deep link is sent; a deep link is any web link that goes beyond a home page. For example, www.uspto.gov is a home page and not a deep link, whereas the link that takes one directly to the list of supervisory patent examiners in the 3690 art units within TC 3600, which is www.uspto.gov/patents/contact-patents/tc-3600-management-roster#3690, is a deep link.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) combining data with other data and inserting it into some kind of folder or other data storage, sending data, receiving data, gathering and storing other data, retrieving a rule (which is more data), performing a task or instruction based on the rule, and then conditionally performing the task or instruction again.
As all of this centers around “media content” which comprises a “call to action”, it recites advertising behavior, one of the “certain methods of organizing human activity” deemed abstract. Further, these are steps that could, in the absence of computers, be performed by a person mentally, or perhaps while using or making paper records.
An advertising executive can gather and store data, instruct someone else to fill out a form, retrieve a rule (such as targeting criteria for an advertisement), can create a call to action (that’s the essential task of an advertising executive), can store it e.g. by writing it on paper, and can perform or orchestrate a marketing campaign according to the rule, and can repeat any or all of these steps. None of this presents any practical difficulty, and none requires any technology beyond, at most, the use of a pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer, discussed below, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond using a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As the claims only manipulate information about advertisements and how and when they are to be delivered, they do not improve the “functioning of a computer” or of “any other technology or technical field”. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea “with, or by use of a particular machine”, MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a “transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing”, MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such information, being intangible, is not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea “in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment”, MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim includes a processor and memory, and instructions for the processor to execute. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification does not meaningfully limit them, such that a generic computer will suffice.
It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating data and sharing data with persons and/or other devices. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. A deep link is simply a text string (as shown in the example above), i.e. data, and the fact that it is supposed to make an external, unclaimed device perform tasks is not relevant in this analysis; it is nonfunctional printed matter with respect to the claimed substrate.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim elements when considered as an ordered combination — a generic computer performing a chronological sequence of abstract steps — do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually. The other independent claim is simply a different embodiment but is likewise directed to a generic computer performing, essentially, the same process.
The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 2-4 and 9-11 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated, claims 5 and 12 simply recite additional data sharing, and claims 6, 7, 13 and 14 simply recite additional, abstract manipulation of data.
The claims are not patent eligible. The Examiner has thoroughly reviewed the originally filed application, including the specification and drawing sheets, and finds nothing likely sufficient to overcome this rejection.
For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 — 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wingle (U.S. Patent No. 9,754,293) in view of Guthery et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0262452) further in view of Clark et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,275,798).
In-line citations are to Wingle.
With regard to Claim 1:
Wingle teaches: A computer system for link-initiated dynamic-mode communications, comprising a hardware memory and a processor, wherein the computer system is configured to execute software instructions stored on nontransitory machine-readable storage media [Col. 1, lines 62-64; “a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, said instructions, when executed by a processor, performing the steps”; Col. 6, lines 21-23; the medium may comprise a “memory” which “may be non-transitory”] that:
couple stored media content from one or more databases to an initiator ID, wherein the initiator ID is an identification marker unique to the stored media content, [Col. 8, lines 17-20; two parts of text may be combined to create a “tag” to indicate a particular item of merchandise such as a car in an inventory] and wherein the media content comprises a call-to-action; [Col. 8, line 28; a “banner advertisement” is associated with the tag]
embed the initiator ID into an initiator… wherein the initiator is an interactable object and when interacted with by a mobile computing device... [Col. 4, lines 43-48; “the system automatically sets the keyword (to be texted to a phone number) to match the tag, generates a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) having a path that matches the alphanumeric characters of the tag, and generates a QR code pointing to the generated URL.”]
receive the text message from the mobile computing device, the message comprising the initiator ID and metadata about the mobile device; [Col. 5, line 3; the user may obtain information by texting a message such as “HONDA” to a short code e.g. “12345”; the short code reads on a version of the claimed initiator ID; text messages sent by phone include metadata about the phone such as its phone number or IP address, as would have been known to those then of ordinary skill in the art]
gather and store identifying information about the mobile computing device, wherein the identifying information can be accessed by the first computing device; [Col. 5, line 29; that the server can display information “onto the screen of the user’s electronic device” reads on it necessarily having done this]
retrieve a rule associated with the initiator ID; [Col. 7, lines 42-48; “original (or ‘default’) EID attributes are set” and are later used]
execute the instructions contained in the rule; [Col. 7, line 55; based on the attributes “a CCD is generated”; CCD abbreviates “consumer content display” i.e. advertising message] and
re-execute the instructions or execute a new plurality of instructions based off the stored identifying information about the mobile computing device. [Sheet 9, Fig. 9; the process iterates and may repeat with new attributes]
Wingle teaches automatically populating a text field, [e.g. Col. 16, lines 38-39] but does not explicitly teach auto-populate a text message on the mobile computing device, but it is known in the art. Guthery teaches a personalized message system [title] in which a user can interact with an “advertisement”. [0193] Text may be “automatically populated into a field” which may comprise text “on a smart phone”. [0095] Guthery and Wingle are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for sending messages such as advertisements to users of mobile devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Guthery with that of Wingle for customer convenience, as suggested by Guthery’s step; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply auto- populating text in the manner of Guthery in place of, or in addition to, that of Wingle; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Wingle does not explicitly teach using a deep-linking protocol which is configured to trigger a native messaging application on the mobile device, but it is known in the art. Clark teaches a system for tracking analytics regarding mobile devices using deep links. [title] A deep link can be created and used in the process of “auto populat[ing] fields”. [Col. 30, lines 49-52] The deep link may trigger a change to a “particular state[] in an application via a deep link presented in another application” and “track advertising conversions”. [abstract] The applications to which the deep linking applies may be “native mobile applications”. [Col. 1, line 20] This linking would be “valuable” to users. [Col. 1, line 32] Clark and Wingle are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for sending information such as advertisements to mobile devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Clark with that of Wingle in order to provide value to users, as taught by Clark; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply providing access to an application in the manner of Clark rather than, or in addition to, that of Wingle; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
In this and the subsequent claims, that a message includes an “initiator ID programmatically inserted into the message body”, where the message body has already been made to exist, consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the claimed substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 3:
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the initiator comprises an interactable link to an Internet resource, a scannable QR code, or an NFC beacon. [Col. 4, line 48 as cited above; the “generated URL” which a user can click to get more information reads on an interactable link to an Internet resource]
With regard to Claim 4:
The computer system of claim 3, wherein the call-to-action is information about a product, information about a service, a request to contact an agent, or some combination thereof. [Col. 17, lines 54-56; it may include information about a vehicle such as “the vehicle type information” which “may include, for example, without limitation, manufacturer, model, trim package, and model year”]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 3 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 5:
The computer system of claim 4, wherein the computer system is further configured to execute software instructions stored on nontransitory machine-readable storage media that:
retrieve the stored media content associated with the initiator ID; and
send the stored media content to the mobile computing device. [Col. 5, line 29 as cited above, for the server to display the advertisement on the user’s mobile device requires these steps, as would have been known to those then of ordinary skill in the art]
With regard to Claim 8:
Wingle teaches: A method for link-initiated dynamic-mode communications, comprising the steps of:
coupling stored media content from one or more databases to an initiator ID, wherein the initiator ID is an identification marker unique to the stored media content, [Col. 8, lines 17-20; two parts of text may be combined to create a “tag” to indicate a particular item of merchandise such as a car in an inventory] and wherein the media content comprises a call-to-action; [Col. 8, line 28; a “banner advertisement” is associated with the tag]
embedding the initiator ID into an initiator… wherein the initiator is an interactable object and when interacted with by a mobile computing device... [Col. 4, lines 43-48; “the system automatically sets the keyword (to be texted to a phone number) to match the tag, generates a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) having a path that matches the alphanumeric characters of the tag, and generates a QR code pointing to the generated URL.”]
receiving the text message from the mobile computing device, the message comprising the initiator ID and metadata about the mobile device; [Col. 5, line 3; the user may obtain information by texting a message such as “HONDA” to a short code e.g. “12345”; the short code reads on a version of the claimed initiator ID; text messages sent by phone include metadata about the phone such as its phone number or IP address, as would have been known to those then of ordinary skill in the art]
gather and store identifying information about the mobile computing device, wherein the identifying information can be accessed by the first computing device; [Col. 5, line 29; that the server can display information “onto the screen of the user’s electronic device” reads on it necessarily having done this]
retrieving a rule associated with the initiator ID; [Col. 7, lines 42-48; “original (or ‘default’) EID attributes are set” and are later used]
executing the instructions contained in the rule; [Col. 7, line 55; based on the attributes “a CCD is generated”; CCD abbreviates “consumer content display” i.e. advertising message] and
re-executing the instructions or execute a new plurality of instructions based off the stored identifying information about the mobile computing device. [Sheet 9, Fig. 9; the process iterates and may repeat with new attributes]
Wingle teaches automatically populating a text field, [e.g. Col. 16, lines 38-39] but does not explicitly teach auto-populate a text message on the mobile computing device, but it is known in the art. Guthery teaches a personalized message system [title] in which a user can interact with an “advertisement”. [0193] Text may be “automatically populated into a field” which may comprise text “on a smart phone”. [0095] Guthery and Wingle are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for sending messages such as advertisements to users of mobile devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Guthery with that of Wingle for customer convenience, as suggested by Guthery’s step; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply auto- populating text in the manner of Guthery in place of, or in addition to, that of Wingle; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Wingle does not explicitly teach using a deep-linking protocol which is configured to trigger a native messaging application on the mobile device, but it is known in the art. Clark teaches a system for tracking analytics regarding mobile devices using deep links. [title] A deep link can be created and used in the process of “auto populat[ing] fields”. [Col. 30, lines 49-52] The deep link may trigger a change to a “particular state[] in an application via a deep link presented in another application” and “track advertising conversions”. [abstract] The applications to which the deep linking applies may be “native mobile applications”. [Col. 1, line 20] This linking would be “valuable” to users. [Col. 1, line 32] Clark and Wingle are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for sending information such as advertisements to mobile devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Clark with that of Wingle in order to provide value to users, as taught by Clark; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply providing access to an application in the manner of Clark rather than, or in addition to, that of Wingle; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 10:
The method of claim 8, wherein the initiator comprises an interactable link to an Internet resource, a scannable QR code, or an NFC beacon. [Col. 4, line 48 as cited above; the “generated URL” which a user can click to get more information reads on an interactable link to an Internet resource]
With regard to Claim 11:
The method of claim 10, wherein the call-to-action is information about a product, information about a service, a request to contact an agent, or some combination thereof. [Col. 17, lines 54-56; it may include information about a vehicle such as “the vehicle type information” which “may include, for example, without limitation, manufacturer, model, trim package, and model year”]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 10 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 12:
The method of claim 10, wherein the method further comprises the steps of:
retrieving the stored media content associated with the initiator ID; and
sending the stored media content to the mobile computing device. [Col. 5, line 29 as cited above, for the server to display the advertisement on the user’s mobile device requires these steps, as would have been known to those then of ordinary skill in the art]
Claim(s) 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wingle in view of Guthery et al. further in view of Clark et al. further in view of McConnell et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0188753).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 2:
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the identifying information about the mobile computing device is gathered by a tracking pixel.
With regard to Claim 9:
The method of claim 8, wherein the identifying information about the mobile computing device is gathered by a tracking pixel.
Wingle, Guthery and Clark teach the system of claim 1 and method of claim 8, including the use of identifying information about a mobile computing device as cited above, but do not explicitly teach the use of a tracking pixel, but it is known in the art. McConnell teaches a system for identifying attributes of audience segments [title] for use by advertisers. [abstract] An advertisement “may contain a tracking pixel”, [id.] which may be related to the use of a “mobile device” which may display a “content site”. [0008] McConnell and Wingle are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for advertising to mobile devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of McConnell with that of Wingle, Guthery and Clark in order to understand the attributes of the recipients of advertisements, as taught by McConnell; [0014] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply obtaining data by the triggering means of McConnell rather than, or in addition to, those of Wingle; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wingle in view of Guthery et al. further in view of Clark et al. further in view of Kanuganti et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0063893).
Claims 6 and 13 are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 6:
The computer system of claim 4, wherein the instructions further cause the first computing device to:
determine an available agent;
mask personally identifiable information in the text message;
send the masked text message to the agent;
facilitate the sending and receiving of any further messages between the agent and the mobile computing device; and
repeat the masking of all messages facilitated between the agent and the mobile computing device until termination of the communication.
With regard to Claim 13:
The method of claim 11, wherein the method further comprises the steps of:
determining an available agent;
masking personally identifiable information in the text message;
sending the masked text message to the agent;
facilitating the sending and receiving of any further messages between the agent and the mobile computing device; and
repeating the masking of all messages facilitated between the agent and the mobile computing device until termination of the communication.
Wingle, Guthery and Clark teach the system of claim 4 and method of claim 11, but do not explicitly teach this interaction with an agent, but it is known in the art. Kanuganti teaches streaming system [title] in which a user may interact using a mobile device. [0008] A server communicates through a user with an “agent device” which an “agent may view” to assist a user. [abstract] It selects an agent “from a set of available agents”. [0056] An agent may select a “guidance mode” of operation in which an “external service” is contacted for additional assistance. [0061] The communication may be a “text messaging communication”. [0055] A view can be modified by a “masking feature” [0192] in which any portion of a view may be distorted or masked. [0193] The system facilitates “message passing”. [0046] Information may be reformatted throughout a conversation. [0011] The entire process may iterate. [Fig. 11] Kanuganti and WIngle are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for communicating with users through their mobile devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Kanuganti with that of Wingle, Guthery and Clark in order to provide assistance to a user, as taught by Kanuganti; [abstract] further, it is simply a substitution of known parts for others with predictable results, simply using an agent as in Kanuganti rather than a user communicating directly with a server as in Wingle, and masking data such as the identifying data of Wingle using the technique of Kanuganti; the substitutions produce no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 7:
The computer system of claim 4, wherein the computer system is further configured to execute software instructions stored on nontransitory machine-readable storage media that:
determine an available agent;
identify the available agent's preferred mode of communication;
mask personally identifiable information in the text message;
reformat the text message to match the agent's mode of communication, wherein the agent's mode of communication is different than the text message's original mode of communication;
send the reformatted and masked text message to the agent;
facilitate the sending and receiving of any further messages between the agent and the mobile computing device; and
repeat the masking and reformatting of all messages facilitated between the agent and the mobile computing device until termination of the communication. [id.; each of these steps was included in the analysis of claim 6 above]
With regard to Claim 14:
The method of claim 11, wherein the method further comprises the steps of:
determining an available agent;
identifying the available agent's preferred mode of communication;
masking personally identifiable information in the text message;
reformatting the text message to match the agent's mode of communication, wherein the agent's mode of communication is different than the text message's original mode of communication;
sending the reformatted and masked text message to the agent;
facilitating the sending and receiving of any further messages between the agent and the mobile computing device; and
repeating the masking and reformatting of all messages facilitated between the agent and the mobile computing device until termination of the communication. [id.; each of these steps was included in the analysis of claim 13 above]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 November 2025 in regard to the “judicial exception” rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s amendment has overcome the “statutory category” § 101 rejection, which is withdrawn.
Though the applicant states that the claims do not recite a judicial expression, nowhere does the applicant explain why that ought to be thought so. In fact, a call-to-action is explicitly an advertising term denoting the part of any good advertisement that attempts to compel the viewer to respond. The fact that there are additional, non-abstract elements may be so, but that has nothing whatever to do with the Examiner’s statement that the claims recite, that is, set forth or describe, an abstract idea. That computers are used is not relevant to this particular step of the analysis.
In regard to the question of integration into a practical application, nowhere in the originally-filed application is there any support for the implementation of “deep-linking protocols”, nor any hint as to precisely what that is supposed to mean. Under the Examiner’s interpretation as explained above, it merely requires sending a deep link, which is nothing more than a string of text. The fact that the claimed system sends a link to an external, unclaimed device to cause the unclaimed device to perform actions does not change its nature as nonfunctional printed matter with respect to the claimed substrate.
Auto-populating message content is simply a type of output. In regard to metadata, nothing at all is done with metadata in any claim except to receive it, which is insignificant, pre-solution activity, and as nothing is done with the metadata it does not distinguish in any relevant way from data generally. Storing information is squarely within the abstraction. There is no learning in any claim of the present claim set, and even if it were otherwise, the Federal Circuit has held in Recentive1 that machine learning, without more, is not per se sufficient.
There is nothing at all in the originally filed application that mentions or hints at any alleged reduction in communication friction, and any machine learning at all reads on adaptive system behavior. The present claims are easily distinguished from those of DDR Holdings, as the court held in that instance the claims were directed to an internet-specific challenge and a solution thereto – the challenge being to maintain a user’s presence within one’s own website infrastructure while allowing the user to perceive otherwise, which (said the court) had no meaningful pre-internet analogue. By contrast, the present claims do nothing more than the Examiner identified above, and the Examiner provided a reasonable pre-computer analogue.
The claims are not patent eligible and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 in regard to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In so far as the arguments relate to language added by amendment, the Examiner has herein incorporated the teaching of Clark to meet the additional limitations.
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 SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
1 Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. et al., 134 F.4th 1205, 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2025)