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 .
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 1,3-11, 13-19 and 21-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception under the subject matter eligibility two-part statutory analysis, as provided below.
Regarding Step 1,
Step 1 addresses whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter according to MPEP §2106.03. All claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. Independent claim 1, also representative of independent claims 11 and 19 for the same abstract features, is underlined below which recite the following claim limitations, as an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 11 & 19:
identifying, for a first contact maintained within a contact directory, first contact details that is publicly sharable;
identifying, for the first contact, second contact details that comprises information that is contextually limited from being publicly shared or presented; and
in response to detecting an operation to share or present the first contact, selectively sharing or presenting only the first contact details and withhold sharing or presenting of the second contact details.
The underlined claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas, and includes at least managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for managing personal behavior/relationships or interactions between people because the claimed steps recite managing contact information of users. Accordingly, since the claimed invention describes a process that falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application according to MPEP §2106.04(d). Claims 1, 11 and 19 include the following additional elements:
An electronic device comprising: a memory having stored thereon a contact management and sharing module for managing contact sharing; at least one processor communicatively coupled to the contact management and sharing module, the at least one processor executing code;
A computer program product comprising: a computer readable storage device; and program code on the computer readable storage device that when executed by a processor associated with a communication device, the program code enables the communication device to provide functionality.
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
The claimed invention merely provides an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with generic computer processes and components recited at a high-level of generality (receiving, storing, determining, and comparing data) using computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and merely “apply it” without any meaningful technological limits or any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Additionally, identifying, for a first contact maintained within a contact directory utilized by an electronic device, first contact details that is publicly sharable and presenting only the first contact details and withhold sharing or presenting of the second contact details amounts to data gathering and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and outputting or displaying data, thus does not add any meaningful limitations, and since receiving, storing and outputting/transmitting data is considered one of the most basic functions of a computer, these additional elements are deemed as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The legal precedent in Electric Power Group and Ultramercial cited in MPEP 2106.05(g) indicate that selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis and display, and requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access, are all insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into any practical application since they do not impose any non-generic meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B,
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05.
As discussed above, the claimed additional elements recited above amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” using generic computer components and functionality. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components are insufficient to provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the claimed additional elements merely limit the abstract idea to be executed in a computer environment, thus do nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Additionally, re-evaluating the insignificant extra-solution activities listed above, it is determined that they are also well-understood, routine, and conventional, as well. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The legal precedent in Ultramercial, Versata, Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that storing and retrieving information in memory, as well as receipt and transmission of information over a computer network, and updating an activity log are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions claimed in a generic manner, as is the case here. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (data gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities) and also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive”).
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements are claimed at a high-level of generality and add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of the claimed limitations is equally generic and otherwise held to be abstract since the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components operating in their ordinary and generic capacities of what is typically expected of computers storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data between generic computer devices. The claimed invention is not patent eligible because the additional elements are merely invoked as tools to execute the abstract idea and thus are insufficient to amount to an inventive concept significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for dependent claims 2-10, 12-18 and 20, they merely further narrow and reiterate the same abstract ideas for storing and updating contacts data, and receiving and transmitting data using generic data storage and transmittal techniques with the same additional elements as recited above which provide nothing more than applying the abstract idea using generic computer technology components. Also, the dependent claims’ additional elements include display and communication interface. These additional elements do not provide any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and at best simply applying the abstract idea executed in a general-purpose computer environment. Therefore the dependent claims are also directed to ineligible subject matter since they do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, after considering all claim elements in Claims 1-20 both individually and as an ordered combination, it has been determined that the claimed invention as a whole, is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since nothing in the claim limitations provide significantly more than the abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,3-11, 13-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hyatt (US 20160034588).
Regarding Claims 1, 11 and 19,
Hyatt discloses:
An electronic device, method and computer program product comprising: a memory having stored thereon a contact management and sharing module for managing contact sharing; at a processor configured to cause (Abstract, Summary, Figs. 1-25, [0075] System can be any computer system or computing device, [0020-0022] System includes a server comprising a processor and a memory adapted to store executable program instructions and data, a database comprising a plurality of user profiles, the computer-readable medium, a computer-readable medium comprising code, and an agent module comprising a first set of code executable by the processor and adapted to process data associated with the unique user, [0008] System can share contact information and provide appropriate level of security and privacy for users) the electronic device to:
identify, for a contact maintained within a contact directory utilized by the electronic device, first contact details that is publicly sharable ([0059] contact user directory 59 such as Microsoft Active Directory, an LDAP directory stores contact user data, [0008] electronic address book of individuals in an enterprise to form a database that is completely open, thus once the information is stored in the database any user can search that database to find a contact of interest and see the openly available contact information, [0068] display list of generic information of contact owners);
identify, for the first contact, second contact details that comprises information that is limited from being shared or presented ([0012] Each individual may have sub-agents, associated with his/her profile, e.g., professional and personal agent version. In one manner, the central or master profile acts as an intelligent overlay to access and extract information and present relevant information on behalf of the individual, [0015-0016] maintains a contact owner's ability to keep their contacts private and to choose when information about their contacts is shared, and user settings that allow a contact owner to control when access will be granted to their contacts, for example, pseudonym (first contact detail) is provided to identify some or all contact owners, thereby protecting the identity (second contact detail) of the contact owner from individuals wishing to solicit access or use of their contacts, for example [0067] individual member of the sales force may choose to restrict access to a sensitive personal contact either entirely, or to reveal only their business information. The individual member of the sales force can set or clear privacy policy flags);
in response to detecting an operation to share the contact to a third party that is not identified as a trusted recipient, provide to the third party, content from both the first contact details and the second contact details as a single shared contact ([0016-0017] the contact owner list may be anonymous in that a pseudonym is provided to identify some or all contact owners, thereby protecting the identity of the contact owner from individuals wishing to solicit access or use of their contacts, maintaining a database of user profiles based, respectively, on user interaction with third-party systems, [0073] identify a list of contact owners and generate a list that either includes a name of a contact owner or an identifier for a contact owner that hides the identity of the contact owner but identifies that contact owner to the system. Information can be hidden or exposed in accordance with the most restrictive applicable policy, [0066-0068] display contact list with only generic information about the contact, thus privacy settings allow for the personal sensitive information to be withheld (actual name) and only provide a pseudonym presented, thus the privacy setting allows a first and second set of information of the contact to be applied with a personal policy which is a policy that defines when a particular contact's information and what parts of that information will be shared, [0091-0095] The ERM is a computer-based system adapted to maintain a database of user profiles based, respectively, on user interaction with third-party systems. The profile may also be aware of other user profiles maintained by third party providers, [0109] News Module 1602 and Cloud Hub 1604 may access various internal components of the ERM and may access various outside resources and third-party system to identify and collect information of interest to a user and to update a user profile record);
wherein the first contact details comprise at least a first identifier of the first contact; and the second contact details comprise at least a second identifier that provides more personalized information than the first identifier and which is limited to being shared only with pre-identified trusted recipients; in response to sharing or presenting the first contact to a third party that is not identified as a trusted recipient ([0017-0023] maintaining a database of user profiles based, respectively, on user interaction with third-party systems, accessing by a first external provider system a first user profile maintained by the database; receiving data derived from a first external provider system and concerning an entity associated with a first user profile maintained by the database; revising the first user profile based on the data received from the first external provider system, an agent module comprising a first set of code executable by the processor and adapted to process data associated with the unique user based at least in part on the unique user's interaction with an unassociated system; a second set of executable code adapted to evaluate collected data and search available databases to identify potential items of interest to the unique user based at least in part on the unique user profile and the collected data).
Regarding Claims 3 & 13,
Hyatt discloses wherein: the first contact details further comprises a first set of contact information selectively linked with the first identifier; and the second contact details further comprises a second set of contact information selectively linked with the second identifier ([0073] a list that either includes actual name of a contact owner or an identifier for a contact owner that hides the identity of the contact owner but identifies that contact owner to the system, [0068] References to anonymous contact owners can include links to anonymous communication methods for requesting further information without breaking the contact owner's privacy, [0016] pseudonym is provided to identify some or all contact owners, thereby protecting the identity of the contact owner from individuals wishing to solicit access or use of their contacts, [0066] the actual contact owner's name can be removed entirely and replaced with an anonymous key or pseudonym which does not identify the contact owner to the user but which can be used by the system for opening up a channel of communication between the user and the contact owner).
Regarding Claims 4 & 14,
Hyatt discloses wherein to identify the first contact details, the processor: determines whether the first identifier is stored within a field of the first contact; and in response to the first identifier not being stored within a field of the first contact, generates the first identifier using one or more of (i) additional information included in the first contact details and (ii) a secondary source that includes information identifying the first contact and used during shared communication involving the first contact ([0006] body of contact cards can be stored in a public folder, [0008] once the information is stored in the database any user can come and search that database to find a contact of interest and see the detailed contact information, [0052] electronic address book that stores information such as the names of individuals and entities that are known to the contact owner. Sources typically include contact data about individuals and entities such as phone numbers, mailing addresses and email addresses and may also include some descriptive information such as an individual's job title and employer, [0057] the classification information can be stored in a dynamically updated taxonomy database 16 of useful and/or not useful domains, email addresses and/or associated entities, [0058] filter list 17 against which contact information is filtered can be stored as a simple list, a set of topical rules, computer code, or database, [0061] identify a set of contacts stored in the database that are relevant to that query, [0070] filter and match various contact data and relationships using a taxonomy 55 and store them in a relationship database, [0072] additional information can include resume information of each contact).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15,
Hyatt discloses a display coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor configures the electronic device to: in response to detecting an operation/selection to present the contact on the display during a first type of context in which second contact details are not displayed ([0067-0068] the global privacy policy may be nothing more than to mask the contact owner, as previously mentioned. The sales force group privacy policy may restrict access to any contact identified as a sales lead to members of the sales force group. An individual member of the sales force may choose to restrict access to a sensitive personal contact either entirely, or to reveal only their business information. The individual member of the sales force can set or clear privacy policy flags on groups of owned contacts, on individual owned contacts, or items of information in individual contacts or on types of information in individual contacts or groups of contacts).
Regarding Claims 6 & 16,
Hyatt discloses wherein the second contact details are restricted from being presented on a display of the electronic device in response to determining, based on one or more contextual conditions associated with the electronic device, that the second contact details are being presented while one or more third parties are capable of viewing the display ([0016] the contact owner list may be anonymous in that a pseudonym is provided to identify some or all contact owners, thereby protecting the identity of the contact owner from individuals wishing to solicit access or use of their contacts, [0068-0073] display the list of contacts as anonymous and generate a list that either includes a name of a contact owner or an identifier for a contact owner that hides the identity of the contact owner but identifies that contact owner to the system).
Regarding Claims 7 & 17,
Hyatt discloses wherein to selectively share or present only the first contact details, the processor is further configured to: determine a context in which the operation to share or present the first contact is being completed; and in response to determining that the context is a first type of context in which a restriction exists on sharing or presenting the second contact details, trigger the selectively sharing or presenting of only the first contact details ([0018] accessing and searching user account data associated with the unique user, [0015] the contact owner list may be anonymous in that a pseudonym is provided to identify some or all contact owners, thereby protecting the identity of the contact owner from individuals wishing to solicit access or use of their contacts, [0067-0068] the global privacy policy may be nothing more than to mask the contact owner, as previously mentioned. The sales force group privacy policy may restrict access to any contact identified as a sales lead to members of the sales force group. An individual member of the sales force may choose to restrict access to a sensitive personal contact either entirely, or to reveal only their business information. The individual member of the sales force can set or clear privacy policy flags on groups of owned contacts, on individual owned contacts, or items of information in individual contacts or on types of information in individual contacts or groups of contacts).
Regarding Claims 8. Hyatt discloses a communication interface by which the electronic device communicatively connects to at least one second device, the communication interface communicatively coupled to the processor; and wherein the processor selectively shares only the first contact details, in response to detecting the operation to share the first contact with the at least one second device ([0012] an individual “dashboard” or the like that serves as a user interface to coordinate among the user profile, Fig. 13 contacts access interface, [0073] can generate a list that either includes a name of a contact owner or an identifier for a contact owner that hides the identity of the contact owner but identifies that contact owner to the system 40. Information can be hidden or exposed).
Regarding Claims 9 and 18,
Hyatt discloses wherein to selectively share only the first contact details, the processor: determines an identification of a second user of the at least one second device; compares the identification of the second user with a list of safe associates; in response to the second user being included within the list of safe associates, shares one or more of the second identifier and the second set of contact information to the second device; and shares the first contact details to the second device, in response to the second user not being included in the list of safe associates ([0066-0068] contact owner can subject themselves to a global privacy policy applied across an enterprise, a group policy, a personal policy, and a policy that defines when a particular contact's or entity's information and what parts of that information will be shared, sales force group privacy policy may restrict access to any contact identified as a sales lead to members of the sales force group. An individual member of the sales force may choose to restrict access to a sensitive personal contact either entirely, or to reveal only their business information. The individual member of the sales force can set or clear privacy policy flags on groups of owned contacts, on individual owned contacts, or items of information in individual contacts or on types of information in individual contacts or groups of contacts, [0073] can generate a list that either includes a name of a contact owner or an identifier for a contact owner that hides the identity of the contact owner but identifies that contact owner to the system 40. Information can be hidden or exposed).
Regarding 10,
Hyatt discloses wherein the second contact details includes personal attributes and profile data, and to selectively share or present only the first contact details, the processor: identifies the personal attributes and profile data in the second contact details as data not to be shared with users not included in a list of safe associates; based on the first contact details not being stored within a field of the first contact, shares or presents the second contact details as the first contact details without sharing or presenting the personal attributes and profile data ([0073] can generate a list that either includes a name of a contact owner or an identifier for a contact owner that hides the identity of the contact owner but identifies that contact owner to the system 40. Information can be hidden or exposed, [0067] sales force group privacy policy may restrict access to any contact identified as a sales lead to members of the sales force group. An individual member of the sales force may choose to restrict access to a sensitive personal contact either entirely, or to reveal only their business information. The individual member of the sales force can set or clear privacy policy flags on groups of owned contacts, on individual owned contacts, or items of information in individual contacts or on types of information in individual contacts or groups of contacts).
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 of this title, 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.
Note: In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyatt (US 20160034588) in view of Lerner (US Pat. 9800525)
Regarding Claims 21 and 22,
Although Hyatt teaches managing contact details, it does not teach yet Lerner teaches:
identify that a screenshot of the first contact details and the second contact details of the contact is to be shared with a second electronic device; determine that a recipient associated with the second electronic device is not a trusted recipient; and in response to determining that the screenshot includes at least one of the second identifier or the second contact details, and that the recipient is not a trusted recipient, automatically obscure the second identifier or the second contact details within the screenshot prior to sharing the screenshot with the second electronic device (Col. 16 [42-52]; (63) Switching to the work profile mode results in a label 408 underneath the contact name changing from “personal” to “work,” and further causes a listing 410 of available work communication channels for William Baker to be displayed in the interface 400, with a preferred communication channel 412 highlighted or otherwise visually emphasized. Thus, the displayed available contact channels are limited to the work contact channels when the electronic device is in the work profile mode and limited to the personal contact channels when the electronic device is in the personal profile mode and the user or the electronic device 100 may select one of the displayed communication channels and may use that communication channel to send a communication to the selected contact, Col.13 [49-52]; the icons for accessing or opening these applications may be not displayed on the electronic device, or may be hidden, when the electronic device is in a different profile mode that is not associated with the particular applications or when the device is not in a trusted network; Col.14 [1-10]; when the context monitoring module 304 detects that the electronic device 100 is able to communicate with a trusted network or otherwise determines that the electronic device 100 is in a designated location that is trusted nor not trusted network, the profile management module 302 may not request a passcode for using a particular profile or for the entire device. However, when the electronic device 100 is in other locations, a passcode or other unlocking information may be required for accessing the particular profile or the entire device, Col.7 [49-53]; As an alternative to omitting the contacts of the other profiles entirely from the listing of contacts 116, the contacts 116 associated with the other non-selected profiles may instead be displayed, but may be visually deemphasized).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective
filing date of the invention, to modify Hyatt to incorporate the teachings of Lerner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include Lerner for the benefit of “aid the user in locating a contact for which the user is unsure of the profile with which the contact is associated.” (Lerner; Col.7 [49-53]).
Response to Amendment & Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and arguments are considered however, they are found to be unpersuasive.
Regarding 101, identifying a single contact within a contact directory is not a technological improvement of the electronic device being used merely at a high level of generality to apply the abstract idea with generic computer technology. Thus, the claimed invention as a whole, is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since nothing in the claim limitations provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding 102, Applicant argues: “Nothing within the cited paragraphs of Hyatt provides any teaching or suggestion of the above-listed and highlighted features of Applicant's claimed invention. For example, Hyatt is devoid of any teaching or suggestion of a local contact data being presented as two different contact data sets, with the second data set being selectively restricted from being shared to only pre- identified trusted recipients. The Examiner cites to paragraphs [0019]-[0023] of Hyatt as disclosing the claim features related to the first identifier, second identifier, identified trusted recipient and processes associated therewith. However, paragraphs [0017]-[0023] of Hyatt instead describe an "intelligent agent" that monitors a user's own interactions with third-party systems (e.g., email, calendar, and CRM systems) to build a predictive profile and identify "potential items of interest" (e.g., news articles, calendared events) for that user, and that validates or disambiguates an identified entity against authority databases. Nothing in the cited passage discloses a first identifier, a second identifier, a determination of trusted-recipient status, or a device restricting or selectively providing contact details based on such a determination. Accordingly, those paragraphs of Hyatt and Hyatt as a whole do not anticipate those features of Applicant's independent claims. For at least these reasons, Applicant's independent claims are therefore allowable over the reference.” Examiner disagrees.
The claim language is descriptive and does not define a trusting process that technologically defines how the information is being shared to a trusted recipient. If the user is receiving the data it is a trusted recipient by default, and nothing in the claim requires what constitutes how the contact details are only to be shared with a trusted recipient since there is no technology involved and any electronic device having a processor can identify contact data within a contact directory and that data is merely being described as sharable, without limiting the sharing process with any technical details or specific technology therefore it is merely descriptive for the data but fails to limit any technology or technical details on how it is determined trusted recipients only.
Conclusion
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 mc. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The relevant prior art made of record not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the current and/or previous PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
US20200053212 Management of calls on mobile computing devices based on call participants
US20200053213 Methods and systems for contact firewalls on mobile computing devices
US20200053214 Management of calls and media content associated with a caller on mobile computing devices
US20210344792 Curated search of entities from dial pad selections
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to LAURA YESILDAG whose direct telephone number is (571) 270-5066 and work schedule is generally Monday-Friday, from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
In order to receive any email communication from the Examiner, filing for official authorization for Internet Communication is required. The authorization form can be accessed at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
Examiner interviews can be requested by telephone or are available using the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, LYNDA JASMIN, can be reached at (571) 272-6782 for any urgent matter that needs immediate attention. Additional information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the USPTO Patent Center. For more information about the USPTO Patent Center, please access https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ The Patent Center is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications and can be contacted for questions at 1-866-217-9197 or 571-272-4100.
/LAURA YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights