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 Status
Claims 1, 5-14, and 17-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits.
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, 5-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they recite non-patentable subject matter under MPEP § 2106, e.g., the 2019 PEG, October update. More particularly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea, etc.) without practical application or significantly more.
More particularly, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Broad categories of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas. See, generally, MPEP § 2106; Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. __ (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294, 1297-98 (2012)); Federal Register notice titled 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (79 FR 74618), which is found at: http:// www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf; 2015 Update to the Interim Guidance; the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019; and associated Office memoranda.
Under MPEP § 2106, Step 1, the claimed invention, taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a process (i.e., a method), machine (e.g., apparatus, system, equipment, etc.), article of manufacture (e.g., a non-transitory computer readable medium) or composition of matter, and as such, is patent eligible.
Under MPEP § 2106, Step 2a-prong 1, Claims 1, 5-14, and 17-20 recite a judicial exception(s), including a method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principle). More particularly, the entirety of the method steps is directed towards disseminating orders to work-stations, and more particularly, selectively sending an order to a particular workstation based on the order information and workstation order-receiving strategy. This is a long-standing commercial practice previously performed by humans (e.g., distribution/shipping centers, businesses, warehouses, etc.) manually and via generic computing. As such, the inventions include an abstract idea under § 2106, and Alice Corporation.
Under step 2a-prong 2, the claims fail to recite a practical application of the exception, because the extraneous limitations (e.g., the structure—non-transitory computer-readable medium, processor, a computer program, etc.) merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g), generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or generally instruct an artisan to apply it (the method) across generic computing technology. The present invention replaces prior human behavior with generic computing technology (programmed to do so). A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222; BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014). That is to say, the claims are not directed to a new software or computer, but rather employs pre-existing software to do what’s been previously done, albeit less efficiently or slower. “[I]t is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). More particularly, the claims fail to recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology (under MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the use of a particular machine (under § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article (§ 2106.05(c)), or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (§ 2106.05(e)).
Under part 2b, the additional elements offered by the dependent claims either further delineate the abstract idea, add further abstract idea(s), adds insignificant extra-solution activity, or further instruct the artisan to apply it (the abstract idea(s)) across generic computing technology. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because no one claim effects an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Under Alice, merely applying or executing the abstract idea on one or more generic computer system (e.g., a computer system comprising a generic database; a generic element (NIC) for providing website access, etc.; a generic element for receiving user input; and a generic display on the computer, in any of their forms) to carry out the abstract idea more efficiently fails to cure patent ineligibility. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (claims reciting a “scanner” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Serv. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea).
Courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, MPEP 2106.05(d), wherein the italicized tasks are particularly germane to the instant invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 5-14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0302391 to Li et al, alone.
With respect to Claim 1, Li teaches a method for allocating an order (FIG. 2), comprising: determining order information of an order to be allocated (FIG. 2); determining a current order-receiving strategy of each workstation ([0068];[0072];[0086];[0136], rule; [0161-63], strategy); and determining, according to the current order-receiving strategy of each workstation and the order information, a workstation having a current order-receiving strategy meets the order to be allocated as a target workstation ([0068];[0086];[0136], rule; [0161-63],strategy); and allocating the order to be allocated to the target workstation (FIG. 2). See Claim 14 below.
Li teaches wherein the method further comprises: presetting a plurality of order-receiving strategies and priorities of the plurality of order-receiving strategies for each workstation according to an attribute of each workstation respectively; when a workstation is not allocated with an order that meets the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation within a preset duration, adjusting the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation; wherein the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation is adjusted to an order-receiving strategy having a priority lower than that of the current order receiving strategy; when a workstation is allocated with a plurality of orders that meet the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation within the preset duration, and a quantity of the plurality of orders is greater than or equal to a first preset quantity value, adjusting the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation to an order-receiving strategy having a priority higher than that of the current order-receiving strategy. ([0061];[0066-68]) Li teaches when a workstation is not allocated with an order that meets the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation within a preset duration ([0063], “cut-off time”), adjusting the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation ([0066-68];[0212]). Li teaches presetting a plurality of order-receiving strategies and priorities of the plurality of order-receiving strategies for each workstation according to an attribute of each workstation respectively ([0068];[0086];[0136], rule; [0163],strategy); and wherein in the when a workstation is not allocated with an order that meets the current order-receiving strategy within a preset duration, adjusting the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation, the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation is adjusted to an order-receiving strategy having a priority lower than that of the current order receiving strategy ([0086];[0151];[0161];[0181-82];[0212], claim 6 therein). Li teaches when a workstation is allocated with a plurality of orders that meet the current order receiving strategy of the workstation within the preset duration, and a quantity of the plurality of orders is greater than or equal to a first preset quantity value ([0085]), adjusting the current order receiving strategy of the workstation to an order-receiving strategy having a priority higher than that of the current order-receiving strategy ([0212];[0181-82]; claim 6 therein, threshold).
The system in Li is configured to perform the recited steps of the invention, however, it does not use the exact same language. Moreover, the process is not described in the same manner, as Li further discloses a targeted inventory container, and targeted robot, in addition to a targeted workstation. Please note that the applied reference(s) need not use the same terminology, or disclose the limitation verbatim. Differences between Li and the instant invention have been deemed obvious, as held in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). For example, whereas Li teaches determining a targeted workstation based on a process, it would have been obvious to try a current order-receiving strategy of each workstation amongst a finite set of descriptive terms choices herein, and obvious to integrate the selection process of the workstation with the associated container and robot. As such, it would have been obvious to modify Li to teach the instant invention.
With respect to Claim 5, Li teaches wherein the allocating the order to be allocated to the target workstation comprises: grouping a plurality of orders to be allocated into at least one batch (see “batch” throughout) according to the order information ([0181-82]); and for each batch, allocating orders to be allocated to a corresponding target workstation according to the current order-receiving strategy of each workstation (Abstract; [0136], rules); and adjusting the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation to an order-receiving strategy having a highest priority after an operation of allocating orders to a corresponding target workstation is completed ([0068];[0072];[0075];[0212]).
With respect to Claim 6, Li teaches wherein the attribute of each workstation comprises a general attribute and a special attribute ([0072];[0075]), the special attribute is an attribute different from that of another workstation ([0072];[0075]); and the presetting a plurality of order-receiving strategies and priorities of the plurality of order-receiving strategies for each workstation according to an attribute of each workstation ([0086]) comprises: setting at least one first order-receiving strategy and a corresponding priority according to the special attribute of a workstation ([0072];[0075];[0086]); and setting at least one second order-receiving strategy and a corresponding priority according to the general attribute of the workstation ([0061];[0086]); wherein the priority of the first order-receiving strategy is higher than that of the second order-receiving strategy (compare targeted to randomly selecting;[0086]).
With respect to Claim 7, Li teaches wherein the special attribute of a workstation comprises: a storage position for a large item ([0072];[0075]); and the first order-receiving strategy comprises: receiving an order in which a volume of an item involved is greater than a preset volume value [0221]); and the allocating the order to be allocated to a target workstation according to the current order-receiving strategy of each workstation and the order information comprises: selecting an order in which a volume of an item involved is greater than the preset volume value from orders according to the first order-receiving strategy, and allocating the selected order to the workstation ([0085]).
With respect to Claim 8, Li teaches wherein the presetting a plurality of order-receiving strategies and priorities of the plurality of order-receiving strategies for each workstation according to an attribute of each workstation respectively ([0086]) comprises: determining a size of an item in an order that the workstation is capable of processing according to a quantity of compartments of a put wall of the workstation, a size of each compartment and a picking method of the workstation (FIG. 7;[0072];[0099]); setting corresponding order-receiving strategies related to item size and corresponding priorities according to the size of the item in the order that the workstation is capable of processing ([0072]); and/or determining a processing-efficiency ranking of a plurality of types of orders according to types of orders processed in the past in the workstation ([0003];[0054]) and corresponding processing speeds of the workstation ([0054]); and setting corresponding order-receiving strategies related to order type and corresponding priorities according to the processing-efficiency ranking of the plurality of types of orders ([0054];[0061]).
With respect to Claim 9, Li teaches wherein the determining order information of an order to be allocated comprises: determining task information (Abstract;[0008];[0072]); and when the task information indicates that the task is an order task, determining the order information (FIG. 3); and the method further comprises: when the task information indicates that the task is an inventory-counting task, determining inventory-counting task information and allocating the inventory-counting task to the workstation ([0092];[0276]).
With respect to Claim 10, Li teaches wherein the inventory-counting task information comprises a type of the inventory-counting task ([0276]); and the allocating the inventory-counting task to the workstation comprises: allocating the inventory-counting task to the workstation according to the type of the inventory-counting task ([0092];[0276]), the current order-receiving strategy of each workstation, and a current quantity of orders at each workstation ([0092];[0102];[0276]).
With respect to Claim 11, Li teaches wherein the allocating the inventory-counting task to the workstation according to the type of the inventory-counting task, the current order- receiving strategy of each workstation, and a current quantity of orders at each workstation comprises: for each workstation, when the priority of the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation is lower than a preset priority and the quantity of orders is less than a second preset quantity value, allocating the inventory-counting task to the workstation according to the type of the inventory-counting task and the attribute of the workstation ([0092];[0142];[0276]).
With respect to Claim 12, Li teaches wherein the type of the inventory-counting task comprises visual inventory counting ([0276]) and RFID inventory counting ([0277]); and the allocating the inventory-counting task to the workstation according to the type of the inventory-counting task comprises: when the type of the inventory-counting task is the visual inventory counting, allocating the inventory-counting task to a workstation equipped with an image identification device ([0127], camera; [0277]); and when the type of the inventory-counting task is the RFID inventory counting, allocating the inventory-counting task to a workstation equipped with an RFID identification device ([0277]).
With respect to Claim 14, Li teaches electronic equipment (Abstract; FIG. 1), comprising: a memory, configured to store program instructions (FIG. 10A); and a processor, configured to invoke and execute the program instructions in the memory, to perform operations (FIG. 10A) of: determining order information of an order to be allocated (FIG. 2); determining a current order-receiving strategy of each workstation ([0072];[0161]); and determining, according to the current order-receiving strategy of each workstation and the order information, a workstation having a current order-receiving strategy meets the order to be allocated as a target workstation ([0072]); and allocating the order to be allocated to the target workstation (FIG. 11); wherein each workstation is preset with a plurality of order-receiving strategies ([0072];[0086]), and the current order-receiving strategy is one of the plurality of order-receiving strategies ([0072];[0086]); the processor is configured to perform operation of switching, when a workstation is not allocated with an order that meets the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation within a preset duration, the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation to another order- receiving strategy of the workstation ([0068];[0086-87];[0212]). See Claim 1 above.
Li teaches when a workstation is not allocated with an order that meets the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation within a preset duration ([0063], “cut-off time”), adjusting the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation ([0066-68];[0212]). Li teaches presetting a plurality of order-receiving strategies and priorities of the plurality of order-receiving strategies for each workstation according to an attribute of each workstation respectively ([0068];[0086];[0136], rule; [0163],strategy); and wherein in the when a workstation is not allocated with an order that meets the current order-receiving strategy within a preset duration, adjusting the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation, the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation is adjusted to an order-receiving strategy having a priority lower than that of the current order receiving strategy ([0086];[0151];[0161];[0181-82];[0212], claim 6 therein). Li teaches when a workstation is allocated with a plurality of orders that meet the current order receiving strategy of the workstation within the preset duration, and a quantity of the plurality of orders is greater than or equal to a first preset quantity value ([0085]), adjusting the current order receiving strategy of the workstation to an order-receiving strategy having a priority higher than that of the current order-receiving strategy ([0212];[0181-82]; claim 6 therein, threshold). See Claim 1 above.
Li teaches wherein each of the plurality of order- receiving strategies is preset with a corresponding priority; in the operation of switching, when a workstation is not allocated with an order that meets the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation within a preset duration, the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation to another order-receiving strategy of the workstation, the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation is switched to an order-receiving strategy having a different priority than that of the current order receiving strategy ([0086];[0151];[0161];[0181-82];[0212], claim 6 therein). Li fails to expressly teach, but Chen teaches switching to a strategy having a lower priority than the current strategy. (col 32, ln 8-45). Chen discusses the dissatisfaction that customers have regarding the quality of service. (col 1, ln12-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li to include switching orders to lower priority workstations as taught by Chen, in order to provide increased quality of service.
Li teaches wherein the processor is configured to perform operation of switching, when a workstation is allocated with a plurality of orders that meet the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation within the preset duration and a quantity of the plurality of orders is greater than or equal to a first preset quantity value, the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation to an order-receiving strategy different than that of the current order-receiving strategy ([0086];[0151];[0161];[0181-82];[0212], claim 6 therein). Li fails to expressly teach, but Chen teaches switching to a strategy having a higher priority than the current strategy. (col 32, ln 8-45). Chen discusses the dissatisfaction that customers have regarding the quality of service. (col 1, ln12-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li to include switching orders to higher priority workstations as taught by Chen, in order to provide increased quality of service.
With respect to Claim 18, Li teaches wherein the operation of determining order information of an order to be allocated comprises: determining task information ([0072]); and when the task information indicates that the task is an order task, determining the order information ([0072]); the processor is further configured to perform operation of: when the task information indicates that the task is an inventory-counting task, determining inventory-counting task information and allocating the inventory-counting task to the workstation ([0092];[0276]).
With respect to Claim 19, Li teaches wherein the inventory-counting task information comprises a type of the inventory-counting task ([0276], fixed position detection or weight detection); and the operation of allocating the inventory-counting task to the workstation comprises: allocating the inventory-counting task to the workstation according to the type of the inventory- counting task, the current order-receiving strategy of each workstation, and a current quantity of orders at each workstation ([0276]); the operation of allocating the inventory-counting task to the workstation according to the type of the inventory-counting task, the current order-receiving strategy of each workstation, and a current quantity of orders at each workstation comprises: for each workstation, when the priority of the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation is lower than a preset priority and the quantity of orders is less than a second preset quantity value, allocating the inventory-counting task to the workstation according to the type of the inventory-counting task and the attribute of the workstation ([0092];[0102];[0276]).
Claim 17, and 20 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Li, and further in view of US 11,610,670 to Chen et al.
With respect to Claim 17, Li teaches wherein the operation of allocating the order to be allocated to the target workstation comprises: grouping a plurality of orders to be allocated into at least one batch according to the order information ([0136]); and for each batch (see “batch” throughout), allocating orders to be allocated to a corresponding target workstation according to the current order-receiving strategy of each workstation; and the processor is further configured to perform operation of: switching the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation to an order-receiving strategy having a different priority after an operation of allocating orders to a corresponding target workstation is completed ([0068];[0072];[0075];[0212]). Li fails to expressly teach, but Chen teaches switching to a strategy having a highest (where only two higher also teaches highest) priority than the current strategy. (col 32, ln 8-45). Chen discusses the dissatisfaction that customers have regarding the quality of service. (col 1, ln12-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li to include switching orders to the highest priority workstations as taught by Chen, in order to provide increased quality of service.
With respect to Claim 20, Li teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program ([0313]), wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, is configured to implement operations of: determining order information of an order to be allocated (Abstract;[0082]); determining a current order-receiving strategy of each workstation ([0068];[0072];[0136], rule; [0161-63], strategy); and determining, according to the current order-receiving strategy of each workstation and the order information, a workstation having a current order-receiving strategy meets the order to be allocated as a target workstation (Abstract;[0085]); and allocating the order to be allocated to the target workstation (Abstract;[0090]); wherein each workstation is preseted with a plurality of order-receiving strategies (FIG. 4), and the current order-receiving strategy is one of the plurality of order-receiving strategies ([0072]); when a workstation is not allocated with an order that meets the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation within a preset duration, the computer program is configured to perform operation of switching the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation to an order-receiving strategy different than that of the current order receiving strategy;
when a workstation is allocated with a plurality of orders that meet the current order- receiving strategy of the workstation within the preset duration and a quantity of the plurality of orders is greater than or equal to a first preset quantity value ([0085-86]), the computer program is configured to perform operation of switching the current order-receiving strategy of the workstation to an order-receiving strategy different than that of the current order-receiving strategy ([0068];[0072];[0086-87];[0075];[0212]). Li fails to expressly teach, but Chen teaches switching to a strategy having a higher priority than the current strategy. (col 32, ln 8-45). Chen discusses the dissatisfaction that customers have regarding the quality of service. (col 1, ln12-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li to include switching orders to higher priority workstations as taught by Chen, in order to provide increased quality of service.
Response to remarks
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 8/4/2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive where rejections/objections are maintained. The Claim amendments primarily raise the scopes of canceled Claims 2-4 to the independent claim. As such, all limitations have been previously considered. The § 101 rejection is maintained, as the invention continues to recite an abstract idea without practical application or significantly more. Upon Traversal Applicant is asked to specify the innovative concept offered by the instant inventions, or what/how the extraneous limitations effect significantly more than the identified abstract idea. As per the prior art, Applicant’s traversal is not persuasive. Li is interpreted under the BRI of the claims to one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the state of the art at the time of filing. Please note that the applied reference(s) need not use the same terminology, or disclose the limitation verbatim, and also that the entirety of a prior art reference is to be applied to the respective claim(s), such that the pinpoint citations above are exemplary and provided for Applicant’s benefit; other locations within the applied reference(s) may further support the rejection. MPEP 2141.02(VI).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-3082. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00, alternating Fri. off.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM J JACOB/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights