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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/7/2026 has been entered.
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 remain pending and stand rejected.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
I. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments focus on Prong Two and emphasize the additional elements including the limitations of "wherein one additional step of the high-friction replacement workflow comprises prompting, via the graphical user interface, the second user to request replacement instructions from the first user;" "receiving, via the graphical user interface, interaction to transmit the request for replacement instructions from the first user;" "transmitting the request for replacement instructions from the first user;" "receiving replacement instructions from the first user;" and "causing display of the replacement instructions in the graphical user interface." The Examiner acknowledges teh recitation of additional elements but maintains that the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e., recite an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application).
Applicant argues that “there are no legal or sales agreements being formed, and there are no economic principles being described or claimed”. This is simply not the case and, even though the limitations above are implemented with additional elements (such as a graphical user interface or other computer components), these elements do nothing more than function as generic computing components on which the abstract idea is performed. The conditional triggering of a “high-priority replacement workflow” lies precisely in the commercial realm itself and is not an improvement to a technical field or another underlying technology.
Merely leveraging a graphical user interface, or devices of users involved in the process of order fulfillment, amounts 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). The “friction” discussed occurs specifically in the fulfillment process resulting from the need to gather instructions from a customer concerning replacement items. Even presuming an improvement, the improvement falls squarely within the bounds of the abstract idea itself rather than in the functioning of the computer or another technology or technical field.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained below.
II. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 as amended recites “receiving, via the graphical user interface, interaction to transmit the request for replacement instructions from to the first user” and “transmitting the request for replacement instructions from the first user”. This subject matter does not conform to the disclosure as originally filed. The most pertinent portions of the specification include:
0050: In general, a replacement workflow may include prompting the picker to initiate communication with the customer to obtain replacement instructions for the unavailable tagged item. When the picker, via the picker’s client device, indicates that the key item is unavailable, the content presentation module may provide a prompt to the picker, via the picker’s device, to initiate communication with the customer, via the customer’s device.
0065: In the high-friction replacement workflow, upon receiving the initiation of communication, the messaging module 240 may establish the communication between the picker’s device and the customer’s device. Through the established communication, the customer may provide replacement instructions to the picker. Such instructions may include canceling of the order, canceling of that item in the order, or providing an alternative item to be obtained in lieu of the unavailable tagged item.
0076: The picker may engage in communication with the customer to notify the customer of the unavailability of Item 314. The customer client device 100 may provide customer engagement 370 in response to the picker client device 110 notifying the customer client device 100 of unavailability of the item. In some embodiments, the customer engagement 370 includes replacement instructions. The replacement instructions may include canceling the order, canceling the item in the order, or providing a substitution item in lieu of the unavailable tagged item.
As understood from the above paragraphs, the picker (second user) initiates the communication to receive replacement instructions – i.e., it is the picker that interacts via the graphical user interface in order to perform receiving, via the graphical user interface, interaction to transmit the request for replacement instructions. While the specification discloses that the customer (first user) may provide the actual replacement instructions themselves, the claims require the request for replacement instructions to be provided “from” the first user (customer). This is not commensurate with the above description, where the picker (second user) is the user that is prompted and the picker that issues the request for replacement instructions (that request being transmitted to the customer (first user) rather than “from” the customer (first user) as claimed.
Accordingly, the claims as written are not supported by the original disclosure because the original disclosure does not support “receiving, via the graphical user interface, interaction to transmit the request for replacement instructions from to the first user” and “transmitting the request for replacement instructions from the first user”. As is consistent with the specification, these limitations will be interpreted as:
receiving, via the graphical user interface, interaction to transmit the request for replacement instructions [[from]] to the first user”,
“transmitting the request for replacement instructions [[from]] to the first user”.
Regarding claims 2-11, these claims depend form claim 1 and are rejected therewith.
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 § 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;
receiving a message indicating that the key item is unavailable at the retailer location;
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, wherein one additional step of the high-friction replacement workflow comprises prompting the second user to request replacement instructions from the first user;
receiving replacement instructions from the first user; and
causing display of the replacement instructions.
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, an online system, a second client device, and generating a graphical user interface. Further, claim 1 recites
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,
receiving, via the graphical user interface, interaction to transmit the request for replacement instructions from the first user, and,
transmitting the request for replacement instructions from the first user.
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 (e.g., an “online” system) 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.
Lastly, the various steps of transmitting and receiving noted above 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,
presenting offers, and/or,
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), Lauka (US 10,592,962) and Zhuang (US 2020/0219171).
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).
Further, 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,
wherein one additional step of the high-friction replacement workflow comprises allowing, via the graphical user interface, the second user to request replacement instructions from the first user;
receiving, via the graphical user interface, interaction to transmit the request for replacement instructions [[from]] to the first user;
transmitting the request for replacement instructions [[from]] to the first user;
receiving replacement instructions from the first user; and
causing display of the replacement instructions in the graphical user interface.
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);
wherein one additional step of the high-friction replacement workflow comprises allowing, via the graphical user interface, the second user to request replacement instructions from the first user (see: col. 4 lines 64-67, col. 5 lines 17-24, Fig. 3A);
receiving, via the graphical user interface, interaction to transmit the request for replacement instructions [[from]] to the first user (see: col. 9 lines 22-32, Fig. 5A (506-510));
transmitting the request for replacement instructions [[from]] to the first user (see: col. 9 lines 22-24 (create and send), Fig. 5A (510-512), Fig. 7);
receiving replacement instructions from the first user (see: col. 9 lines 32-52, Fig. 5A (512), Fig. 5B (514), col. 6 lines 54-57, col. 13 lines 49-64, col. 14 lines 19-26, Fig. 7); and
causing display of the replacement instructions in the graphical user interface (see: col. 9 lines 48-52 & 54-63, col. 10 lines 17-31, Fig. 5B (518, 526).
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 in view of Volkovs 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).
Lastly, though allowing an additional step of the high-friction replacement workflow comprises includes the second user requesting replacement instructions from the first user (see above: Lauka), the combination does not expressly disclose prompting the picker.
To this accord, Zhuang teaches issuing a prompt to a shopper (picker), such as a warning when an item is likely out of stock (see: 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Capua in view of Volkovs and Lauka to have utilized the known technique for prompting a shopper (picker) as taught by Zhuang in order to have instructed the shopper (picker) to pick a replacement item and to limit the amount of time the shopper (picker) looks for an item in the warehouse that is out of stock (see: 0061), thereby improving the picking process.
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 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, Lauka and Zhuang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lyons (US 2020/0020024).
Regarding claim 10, Capua in view of Volkovs, Lauka and Zhuang 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, Lauka and Zhuang to have utilized the known technique for enabling customers to approve items as taught by Lyons in order to enabled evaluation of specific products for purchase that neither slows down the shopper nor is too complex or time consuming for the shopper (see: Lyons: 0012), thereby improving the invention of Capua in view of Volkovs, Lauka and Zhuang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Stanke (US 2024/0242174) teaches issuing a prompt to an employee when an item is out of stock, such as by provide notifications via a mobile device and/or dashboard (see: 0038, 0047).
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
Prosecution Insights