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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 remain pending and stand rejected.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
I. Applicant’s amendment to claim 7 is effective to overcome the previous rejection under 35 USC 112(b). The rejection is withdrawn.
II. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments initially focus on the following limitations:
responsive to the prediction model classifying a first item in the order as being a key item, tagging the first item as a key item;
generating a graphical user interface comprising a display queue of the list of items with the first item tagged as the key item positioned higher in the display queue than other items not tagged as key items in the list of items;
transmitting the graphical user interface comprising the display queue of the list of items for display on a second client device associated with the second user, wherein the second user is assigned to fulfill the order.
Applicant contends that the above limitations “cannot be characterized as directed to the alleged abstract idea”. The Examiner disagrees, and asserts that at least the following portions set forth or describe part of the abstract, commercial process:
responsive to the prediction model classifying a first item in the order as being a key item, tagging the first item as a key item;
generating a display queue of the list of items with the first item tagged as the key item positioned higher in the display queue than other items not tagged as key items in the list of items;
transmitting the display queue of the list of items to the second user is assigned to fulfill the order;
Nothing in these portions of the limitation preclude them from forming part of the abstract idea, and while they may be implemented in concert with additional elements (e.g., graphical user interface), those are addressed in Prong 2 and Step 2B. With respect to tagging the first item as a key item, Applicant alleges that this step relates to “computer functionality of tagging datum with an indication of a parituclar attribute”, yet the claims do not reflect any particular computer functionality for how this is accomplished from the perspective of a computer function. In fact, each of these limitations exudes this same deficiency – the relied upon limitations fail to provide any restriction on how these operations are performed so as to preclude them from being considered part of the abstract idea.
Furthermore, even assuming arguendo the limitations above are considered additional elements (which the Examiner does not acquiesce), they do not render the claim eligible. This is again because the claims contain no restriction on the manner by which the alleged “computer functions” are performed. That is, the high-level manner by which the claims recite these limitations is at best mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, which is insufficient to confer eligibility.
With specific reference to generating a graphical user interface comprising a display queue, the display queue is little more than an ordered list of the items presented on the display. Further, the generation of the interface is at least similar to Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), where 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. Like Trading Technologies, the claimed invention simply provides results with links within a region of an interface (e.g., webpage), which improves the business process of identifying item variants but not the underlying technology of the interface itself.
With further respect to Step 2A (Prong Two) and Step 2B, if it is asserted (as Applicant has – see p. 4-5 of the Remarks) that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., 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 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
While the claims have been amended to recite generating a graphical user interface, the specification only describes the interface and its components at a high level of generality while the claims recite the generation only at a high level. The specification provides no further restriction on how the interface is generated other than the use of the interface in communicating information to a user. The alleged improvement is at best a bare assertion of the improvement and insufficient to demonstrate that Applicant has provided the alleged improvement. Any improvement manifested by the invention is to the abstract idea of itself, rather than the functioning of the computer itself or another technology or technical field (including graphical user interfaces).
With specific reference to Example 37, the Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s comparison. In Example 37, the background specification emphasized that “traditional software does not automatically organize icons so that the most used icons are located near the “start” or “home” icon, where they can be easily accessed”. The specification further outlined that “the amount of use of each icon is automatically determined by a processor that tracks the number of times each icon is selected or how much memory has been allocated to the individual processes associated with each icon over a period of time (e.g., day, week, month, etc.).”.
In finding claim 1 eligible, the analysis noted that claim 1 did recite a judicial exception, but found eligibility in step 2A (prong 2). The analysis emphasized that “the additional elements recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.”. The Examiner does not find Applicant’s assertion that the claimed invention is directed towards improvements in graphical user interfaces sufficient, nor do there exists similarities in the example and the claimed invention outside of the presence of an interface. The claimed invention makes use of an interface utilized as a mere tool to perform the abstract process. Here again, the alleged improvement is at best a bare assertion or “conclusory” in nature.
Lastly, and with respect to Step 2B, at least similar rationale as discussed above with respect to Step 2A (Prong Two) is applicable herein. Moreover, the Examiner reiterates that the claimed functionality – even assuming it rises to more than the mere-instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computing hardware – is akin to at least those outlined expressly in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, storing or retrieving information from memory, electronic recordkeeping). Considered alone or in combination, there is nothing of record that suggests the additional elements as claimed are sufficient to confer eligibility. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained and updated below in view of the amended claims.
III. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Capua does not teach generating a graphical user interface comprising a display queue of the list of items with the first item tagged as the key item positioned higher in the display queue than other items not tagged as key items in the list of items. The Examiner disagrees.
Capua teaches making use of priority data for each of the plurality items wherein the priority indicates items which are essential to complete the delivery request (see: 0018), including stored user data and preferences indicating the essential items (see: 0058). A shopper device provides user interface (generating a graphical user interface comprising) which displays a priority items element (e.g., Fig. 4B (403, 404)) along with the indication “We recommend making sure these items are available first, if not you can cancel the order”. Notably, element 404 is grouped based on their priority (see also: 0090, 0130) and represents a display queue of the list of items. Furthermore, at least one essential items (first item tagged as the key item - e.g., dinosaur shaped chicken nuggets) is placed first in this queue (positioned higher in the display queue than other items not tagged as key items in the list of items) (see: 0090 (designated as a priority item, indicates that the item should be selected first), Fig. 4 (404); see also: Fig. 8B (403), 0190 (prioritize route segments 504A-D that indicate respective route segments that indicate a path to the priority items prior to the items that have not been indicated as priority), 0118 (route segments may be prioritized and displayed in a manner that ensures priority items will be selected)).
While Applicant contends that Capua is silent on how the items are ordered, the claim language merely requires that the key item appear higher in the queue. Fig. 4 (404) clearly depicts a key item in the first position in the queue. Similar, Fig. 8B depicts a key item higher in the queue. Additionally, 0090 teaches that a designated priority item is indicated as being selected first, while 0190 expressly teaches prioritizing the segments to indicate a path to the priority items prior to the items that have not been indicated as priority. The claims do set forth any further details as to how the queue is determined, but merely that the items may be arranged in this order in the queue. Capua, as attested to above, teaches these features as amended.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC 103 has been maintained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 2A claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites a method comprising:
receiving, from a first user, an order comprising a list of items to be obtained at a retailer location by a second user;
applying a prediction model to each item in the list of items to classify whether each item is a key item, wherein the prediction model classifies whether an item in an order is a key item for the order, and wherein the prediction model is trained by:
retrieving historical order data for a plurality of users of the online system, the historical order data including one or more historical orders and user satisfaction with the orders,
labeling one or more items in the one or more historical orders as being key items, and
training the prediction model with the historical order data and the labels;
responsive to the prediction model classifying a first item in the order as being a key item, tagging the first item as a key item;
generating a display queue of the list of items with the first item tagged as the key item positioned higher in the display queue than other items not tagged as key items in the list of items;
transmitting the display queue of the list of items to the second user is assigned to fulfill the order;
receiving a message indicating that the key item is unavailable at the retailer location; and
in response to receiving the message, triggering a high-friction replacement workflow for the key item, wherein the high-friction replacement workflow includes, as compared to a low-friction workflow, one or more additional steps to fulfill the order.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions and/or fundamental economic principals or practices (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because claim 1 recites order fulfillment based on key item availability. This represents the performance of a sales activities or behaviors, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity. This also describes concepts relating to the economy and commerce that represent fundamental economic practices, which also fall under organizing human activity.
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including a method that is computer implemented, a first client device a first user of an online system, a second client device, generating a graphical user interface comprising a display queue of the list of items and transmitting the graphical user interface comprising the display queue of the list of items.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In addition to the above, receiving an order and transmitting the graphical user interface are (at best) extra-solution activity (e.g. data gathering and output, presentation of offers) that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (see: MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network
storing or retrieving information from memory
electronic recordkeeping
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-11, dependent claims 2-11 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 2-11. As such, claims 2-11 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-11 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. Claims 2-11 rely on at least similar additional elements as recited in claim 1, which are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-11 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-11 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 12-20 (non-transitory CRM), claims 12-20 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-8 and 11 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 1-8 and 11 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
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) 1-9, 11, and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Capua (US 2024/0353228) in view of Volkovs (US 2022/0058489) and Lauka (US 10,592,962).
Regarding claim 1, Capua teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, from a first client device associated with a first user of an online system, an order comprising a list of items to be obtained at a retailer location by a second user (see: 0054, 0113, Fig. 3 (302));
applying a prediction model to each item in the list of items to classify whether each item is a key item, wherein the prediction model classifies whether an item in an order is a key item for the order (see: 0075), and wherein the prediction model is trained by:
retrieving historical order data for a plurality of users of the online system, the historical order data including one or more historical orders (see: 0057, 0074-0075);
determining one or more items in the one or more historical orders as being key items (see: 0074 (user data 106 indicating that an item is a priority item), 0075 (determine preference item); see also: 0070-0071); and,
training the prediction model with the historical order data (see: 0057, 0074-0075);
responsive to the prediction model classifying a first item in the order as being a key item, tagging the first item as a key item (see: 0074 (user data 106 indicating that an item is a priority item), 0075 (determine preference item); see also: 0070-0071);
Note items designated as priority items are key items. This includes items determined using the preference model.
generating a graphical user interface comprising a display queue of the list of items with the first item tagged as the key item positioned higher in the display queue than other items not tagged as key items in the list of items (see: Fig. 4B (403, 404), 0090, 0118, 0130, 0190; see also: 0018, 0058);
Note: the Examiner reiterates the discussion of this limitation above under Response to Arguments.
transmitting the graphical user interface comprising the display queue of the list of items for display on a second client device associated with the second user, wherein the second user is assigned to fulfill the order (see: 0040, 0123, 0130, 0190, Fig. 1 (135), Fig. 4B, Fig. 8B);
Though teaching all of the above including training a preference model used to determine and indicate priority items (key items), Capua does not teach where the historical data includes user satisfaction with the orders, labeling one or more items in the one or more historical orders as being key items, and training the prediction model with the labels. These techniques were well-established in the field before the effective filing date of the invention.
For example, Volkovs teaches historical data of a plurality of users comprising user satisfaction with orders (e.g., item reviews) and training a machine learning model with labeled data (see: 0031, 0046-0049, 0054, Fig. 4 (410)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Capua to have utilized the known technique for labeling and training a model using user satisfaction data as taught by Volkovs in order to have enabled Capua to have generated more effective recommendations by leveraging more personalized information related to each user such that the recommendation system generates personalized recommendations for each individual user (see: Volkovs: 0004).
Lastly, Capua does not teach:
receiving, from the second client device, a message indicating that the key item is unavailable at the retailer location; and
in response to receiving the message, triggering a high-friction replacement workflow for the key item, wherein the high-friction replacement workflow includes, as compared to a low-friction workflow, one or more additional steps to fulfill the order.
Notably, Capua does disclose that some products may not be designated with a preferred replacement item (e.g., 0109, Fig. 1 (246, 210(D)). Capua also teaches the shopper device including features to communicate with external entities (see: 0079).
Lauka receiving, from the second client device, a message indicating that the key item is unavailable at the retailer location (see: Fig. 5A (504), col. 8 line 64-col. 9 line 13); and
in response to receiving the message, triggering a high-friction replacement workflow for the key item, wherein the high-friction replacement workflow includes, as compared to a low-friction workflow, one or more additional steps to fulfill the order (see: Fig. 5A (508-510, col. 9 lines 22-31, Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Capua to have utilized the known technique for message-based substitution and fulfillment as taught by Lauka in order to have enabled Capua to have efficiently presented substitutions to the customer and receive choices from the customer, including use of imagery of substitute items (see: Lauka: abstract).
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein labeling the one or more items in the one or more historical orders as being key items is based in part on a frequency of each item in the one or more historical orders (see: Capua: 0120; Volkovs: 0020, 0051-0052).
Note: Capua teaches updating preferences and classifying items as key items, including historical data. Volkovs teaches popularity of items in the historical data (i.e., frequency).
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein labeling the one or more items in the one or more historical orders as being key items comprises labeling at least a first item in the one or more historical orders as a key item based in part on user feedback for a substitution item obtained in lieu of the first item in the one or more historical orders (see: Capua: 0120; Lauka: Fig. 5A (512), col. 9 lines 33-39, Fig. 5B (514), col. 9 lines 40-43, Fig. 7 (708)).
Note: Capua teaches updating preferences and classifying items as key items, including historical data. Lauka teaches specific feedback.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein labeling the one or more items in the one or more historical orders as being key items is based in part on a response time in communications between an order requesting user and an order fulfillment user regarding the one or more items in the one or more historical orders (see: Lauka: Fig. 5B (516), col. 9 lines 53-53 ).
Note: Capua teaches updating preferences and classifying items as key items, including historical data. Lauka teaches response time.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein labeling the one or more items in the one or more historical orders as being key items is based in part on a uniqueness of each item in the one or more historical orders (see: Capua: 0108).
Note: the scope of uniqueness is understood to encompass at least claim 6 below.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the uniqueness of each item is based on one or more of:
user feedback on substitution items obtained in lieu of the item,
user responsiveness to communications regarding the item,
an inventory count of the item, and
a complexity of the item (see: Capua: 0108 (low stock, out of stock); Lauka: Fig. 5A (512), col. 9 lines 33-39, Fig. 5B (514, 516), col. 9 lines 40-43 & 53-63).
Note: Capua teaches updating preferences and classifying items as key items, including historical data. Capua teaches inventory count (e.gh., low or out of stock), while Lauka teaches response time and feedback on provided substitutions.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein triggering the high-friction replacement workflow comprises triggering one or more of:
prompting the second user to request replacement instructions early;
prompting the second user to confirm approval of a substitution item with the first user prior to order completion; and
prompting the second user to provide a picture confirmation of availability of the substitution item (see: Lauka: col. 5 lines 45-55, col. 8 lines 20-30, Fig. 5A (504, 506), Fig. 5B (516)).
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 7, further comprising: receiving the replacement instructions to obtain an alternative item to be obtained in lieu of the key item (see: Lauka: col. 6 line 64-col. 7 line 8, Fig. 3C (302b, 310), Fig. 5 (512)).
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein tagging the first item as a key item comprises displaying a visual indicator adjacent to the key item (see: Capua: 0129, 0131 Fig. 4A-4B (*Essential Items)).
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, from the first client device, feedback associated with fulfillment of the order with the triggered high-friction replacement workflow (see: Volkovs: 0031, 0046-0049, 0054, Fig. 4 (410); Lauka: Fig. 5A (508-510, col. 9 lines 22-31, Fig. 7));
labeling items in the order based on the feedback (see: Volkovs: 0031, 0046-0049, 0054, Fig. 4 (410))); and
retraining the prediction model with the labeled items (see: Volkovs: 0034, 0045 (iteratively updating), 0053, 0055).
Regarding claims 12-20, claims 12-20 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-8 and 11 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 1-8 and 11 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Capua in view of Volkovs and Lauka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lyons (US 2020/0020024).
Regarding claim 10, Capua in view of Volkovs and Lauka teaches all of the above as noted but does not teach wherein tagging the first item as a key item comprises prompting the second user to provide confirmation to the first client device upon obtaining the key item at the retailer location.
To this accord, Lyons discloses prompting the second user to provide confirmation to the first client device upon obtaining an item at the retailer location (see: 0069, 0073 Fig. 6 (520, 540-555)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Capua in view of Volkovs and Lauka to have utilized the known technique for enabling customers to approve items as taught by Lyons in order to have improve the invention of Capua in view of Volkovs and Lyons by enabling evaluation of specific pieces of produce for purchase that neither slows down the shopper nor is too complex or time consuming for the shopper (see: Lyons: 0012).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PTO form 892-U discusses a conceptual framework for integrating human factors into planning models of order picking activities (see: abstract).
Field-Darragh (US 20140279294) discloses an order filling system that assigns order items to a picker by providing an ordered list using order item priority so that a path or order is implicitly and/or explicitly defined in the retail store physical space for the picker to follow to efficiently locate the order items (see: 0075, 0056).
Applicant's amendment necessitated any changes to the grounds 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 WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619