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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3 have been cancelled. Claims 4-16 have been amended. Claims 4-16 are currently pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 17th, 2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more and amounts to an improvement. The examiner respectfully disagrees, the claim merely a human indicating which service providers can provide services for different timeslots and placing deliveries according to a preferred schedule. The examiner notes that the determining an order can merely be done by pen and paper and dispatching a vehicle merely shares location data with a driver/vehicle terminal.
Applicant's amendments filed December 17th, 2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 4, 8 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner notes that a new reference Garcia-Brosa, Pub. No. US2021/0248530 A1 is made.
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.
Claim 4-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites and abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). See 2019 PEG.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
The additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
The additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
The additional element(s) that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
The additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
The additional element(s) 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
The additional element(s) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
The additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
The additional element(s) does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2019 PEG.
alysis step 1
Claims 4, 8, and 16 are directed to a system and method. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
alysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas; a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 4 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 4 recites:
An information processing device comprising:
A server equipped to communicate with user terminals and providers via a network and includes a memory storing a program, a processor that executes a program stored in the memory, the server configured to:
generate movement plan data indicating a user's movement plan;
extract an experience that is allowed to be experience during stay time, when the stay time at a user’s place of stay included in the movement plan is equal to or longer than a predetermined time, and specify an experience provider capable of moving to the user’s place of stay and providing the user with the experience; and
transmit, to the user, experience information data including information on the experience that the experience provider can provide,
wherein the server is configured to:
specify multiple experience providers,
determine an order of providing the user with the experience according to types of the multiple experience providers, and
dispatch a vehicle such that the vehicle arrives at the user’s place of stay in the determined order.
The examiner submits that the forgoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation of the human mind. For example, extracting an experience …specify multiple experience providers, determining an order and dispatching a vehicle. A human using pen and paper can make these determinations and provide these results. After making the determinations a person can coordinate the deliveries to arrive based on a schedule.
alysis – step 2A, prong II
Regarding Prong 2 of the step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlines portions are the “additional limitation” while the bolded portions continue to represent the abstract idea):
An information processing device comprising:
a server equipped to communicate with user terminals and providers via a network and includes a memory storing a program, a processor that executes a program stored in the memory, the server configured to:
generate movement plan data indicating a user's movement plan;
extract an experience that is allowed to be experience during stay time, when the stay time at a user’s place of stay included in the movement plan is equal to or longer than a predetermined time, and specify an experience provider capable of moving to the user’s place of stay and providing the user with the experience; and
transmit, to the user, experience information data including information on the experience that the experience provider can provide,
wherein the server is configured to:
specify multiple experience providers,
determine an order or providing the user with the experience according to types of the multiple experience providers, and
dispatch a vehicle such that the vehicle arrives at the user’s place of stay in the determined order.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the server, processor and transmitting data are insignificant extra solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at elements taken individually. The additional limitation steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means for gathering data), and amounts to mere data gathering which does not add a meaningful limitation to the process. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). the additional limitations merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. Accordingly additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 4 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the server, processor and transmitting data amount to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of the server, processor and transmitting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the devices and modules are anything other than conventional computer components. Also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network, receiving, or transmitting data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Accordingly, a conclusion that the server, processor and transmitting data, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities is supported under Berkheimer.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the server, processor and transmitting data are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 5-7 and 9-15 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the generating, extracting and determining steps. The additional limitations of a server, processor and transmitting data are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity; the additional limitation is well understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication of additional elements are anything other than conventional computer components. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and the cases cited therein, indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, dependent claims 5-7 and 9-15 are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for in the rejection of the independent claim.
Therefore claims 5-7 and 9-15 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 4-8, 10 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radhakrishnan, Pub. No. US2014/0095216A1 in view of Garcia-Brosa, Pub. No. US2021/0248530A1, hereinafter referred to as Radhakrishnan and Garcia-Brosa, respectively.
As per Claims 4, 8 and 16, Radhakrishnan discloses a method and system comprising:
a server equipped to communicate with user terminals and providers via a network and includes a memory storing a program, a processor that executes a program stored in the memory, the server configured to:
generate movement plan data indicating a user's movement plan (see at least paragraph [0016] “Accordingly, when a travel itinerary is created for a user, embodiments of the present invention can recommend events that comport with the user's preferences and coincide with the user's itinerary, which can help apprise the user of events that he or she might not otherwise have known about and allow the user to incorporate the identified events into his or her travel plan”);
extract an experience that is allowed to be experience during stay time, when the stay time at a user’s place of stay included in the movement plan is equal to or longer than a predetermined time, and specify an experience provider capable of moving to the user’s place of stay and providing the user with the experience (see at least paragraph [0045] “In step 406, recommendation program 112 requests the user's travel itinerary from one or more travel service providers 122 and, in step 408, recommendation program 112 receives the user's travel itinerary from one or more travel service providers 122. In this exemplary embodiment, the travel itinerary includes one or more scheduled times and locations. The scheduled times and locations can correspond to events, arrival and departure points, or any other elements on the user's travel itinerary”); and
transmit, to the user, experience information data including information on the experience that the experience provider can provide (see at least paragraph [0047] “In step 412, recommendation program 112 notifies the user of the one or more events identified in step 410. In this exemplary embodiment, recommendation program 112 notifies the user by transmitting an electronic message to the user. The notification includes descriptive information pertaining to the identified one or more events, as well as selectable elements (e.g., buttons or hyperlinks) to purchase tickets and other goods that pertain to the events, which can be configured to direct web browser 104 to service providers such as one or more ecommerce service providers 126.”),
wherein the server is configured to:
specify multiple experience providers (see at least paragraphs [0021] “Web browser 104 enables a user of client computer system 102 to access server computer system 106 via network 130 to set up a user profile and receive event recommendations in accordance with embodiments of the present invention. Web browser 104 also enables a user of client computer system 102 to access one or more travel service providers 122 (e.g., to plan a trip and create an itinerary), one or more social media service providers 124 (e.g., to interact with friends and colleagues), one or more ecommerce service providers 126 (e.g., to make purchases), and one or more messaging service providers 128 (e.g., to send and receive electronic messages) via network 130”. [0046] “0046 In step 410, recommendation program 112 analyzes the user's travel itinerary and identifies one or more events that comport with one or more of the user's preferences for events and coincide with the user's itinerary. In this exemplary embodiment, recommendation program 112 searches events data store 120 for events that are associated with one or more keyword tags that match keyword tags for the user's preferences stored in user profile data store 116 (i.e., events that are of potential interest to the user)”).
Radhakrishnan fails to disclose determine an order of providing the user with the experience according to types of the multiple experience providers, and dispatch a vehicle such that the vehicle arrives at the user’s place of stay in the determined order. However, Garcia-Brosa teaches the above limitations (see at least 0009, 0076, 0094, 0180, “subsequent course”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Radhakrishnan and include determining a schedule of a multi-restaurant order and having the items delivered as taught by Garcia-Brosa with a reasonable expectation of success because by enabling such piecemeal delivered from a plurality of food providers, this not only benefits the customer, but the food provider may stand to increase sales. The restaurant can increase sales—and not just by geographic expansion alone, but by enabling customers to only order their favorite items from their favorite restaurant, whereas before they would face an ‘all or nothing’ decision (Garcia-Brosa 0018).
As per Claim 5, Radhakrishnan discloses the server is configured to transmit a control signal that causes a user’s terminal device to display time information indicating that the experience is allowed to be provided in the determined order. (see at least 0038, 0048, “In step 412, recommendation program 112 notifies the user of the one or more events identified in step 410. In this exemplary embodiment, recommendation program 112 notifies the user by transmitting an electronic message to the user. The notification includes descriptive information pertaining to the identified one or more events, as well as selectable elements (e.g., buttons or hyperlinks) to purchase tickets and other goods that pertain to the events”).
As per Claim 6, Radhakrishnan discloses wherein the server is configured to transmit a control signal that causes a user’s terminal device to display the experience information data (see at least 0047, “In step 412, recommendation program 112 notifies the user of the one or more events…..notifies the user by transmitting an electronic message to the user. The notification includes descriptive information pertaining to the identified one or more vents….”)
As per Claim 7, Radhakrishnan discloses wherein the server is configured to acquire experience desire data relating to an experience desired by a user (see at least 0046, “recommendation program 112 analyzes the user's travel itinerary and identifies one or more events that comport with one or more of the user's preferences for events and coincide with the user's itinerary. In this exemplary embodiment, recommendation program 112 searches events data store 120 for events that are associated with one or more keyword tags that match keyword tags for the user's preferences stored in user profile data store 116 (i.e., events that are of potential interest to the user)”),
set, based on the experience desire data, a place where the experience desired by the user is allowed to be provided at the user's place of stay (see at least 0016, “Accordingly, when a travel itinerary is created for a user, embodiments of the present invention can recommend events that comport with the user's preferences and coincide with the user's itinerary, which can help apprise the user of events that he or she might not otherwise have known about and allow the user to incorporate the identified events into his or her travel plan”),
transmit to the user, data including information on the user's place of stay (see at least 0047, “In step 412, recommendation program 112 notifies the user of the one or more events identified in step 410. In this exemplary embodiment, recommendation program 112 notifies the user by transmitting an electronic message to the user. The notification includes descriptive information pertaining to the identified one or more events”).
As per Claim 10, Radhakrishnan discloses wherein the server is configured to determine the experience according to a length of the stay time, and specifies a provider capable of providing the determined experience as the experience provider (see at least 0045, “In step 406, recommendation program 112 requests the user's travel itinerary from one or more travel service providers 122 and, in step 408, recommendation program 112 receives the user's travel itinerary from one or more travel service providers 122. In this exemplary embodiment, the travel itinerary includes one or more scheduled times and locations. The scheduled times and locations can correspond to events, arrival and departure points, or any other elements on the user's travel itinerary”. [0021] “Web browser 104 enables a user of client computer system 102 to access server computer system 106 via network 130 to set up a user profile and receive event recommendations in accordance with embodiments of the present invention. Web browser 104 also enables a user of client computer system 102 to access one or more travel service providers 122 (e.g., to plan a trip and create an itinerary), one or more social media service providers 124 (e.g., to interact with friends and colleagues), one or more ecommerce service providers 126 (e.g., to make purchases), and one or more messaging service providers 128 (e.g., to send and receive electronic messages) via network 130”).
As per Claim 12, Radhakrishnan discloses wherein the server is configured to determine the provider specification unit determines the experience according to an attribute of the user's place of stay, and specifies a provider capable of providing the determined experience as the experience provider (see at least 0046, “recommendation program 112 analyzes the user's travel itinerary and identifies one or more events that comport with one or more of the user's preferences for events and coincide with the user's itinerary”. [0016] “Accordingly, when a travel itinerary is created for a user, embodiments of the present invention can recommend events that comport with the user's preferences and coincide with the user's itinerary, which can help apprise the user of events that he or she might not otherwise have known about and allow the user to incorporate the identified events into his or her travel plan”).
As per Claim 13, Radhakrishnan discloses wherein the server is configured to transmit the transmission unit transmits experience information data including the information on the experience that is allowed to be provided by the experience provider (see at least 0046, “recommendation program 112 analyzes the user's travel itinerary and identifies one or more events that comport with one or more of the user's preferences for events and coincide with the user's itinerary. In this exemplary embodiment, recommendation program 112 searches events data store 120 for events that are associated with one or more keyword tags that match keyword tags for the user's preferences stored in user profile data store 116 (i.e., events that are of potential interest to the user)”. [0047] “In step 412, recommendation program 112 notifies the user of the one or more events identified in step 410. In this exemplary embodiment, recommendation program 112 notifies the user by transmitting an electronic message to the user. The notification includes descriptive information pertaining to the identified one or more events”).
As per Claims 14-15, Radhakrishnan fails to disclose wherein the server is configured to dispatch a vehicle, transmit a signal causing the user to select approval or denial with respect to the experience extracted by the provider specification unit, and dispatch the vehicle that moves to the user’s place of stay to the user, in response to reception signal indicating approval of the experience. However, Garcia-Brosa teaches these limitations (see at least 0096, 0141, “may comprise profile information of each user associated with the multi-restaurant order such as, for example, delivery address 704. The checkout module, prior to confirming the multi-restaurant order, may request a confirmation, update, and/or selection of the delivery address 744. The checkout module may further comprise a request at least one delivery instruction 1100. At least one delivery instruction 1110 may comprise a predetermined selection of delivery instructions, and/or a text field 1112 for customized instructions.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Radhakrishnan and include a confirmation of the order and dispatching a vehicle(s) as taught by Garcia-Brosa with a reasonable expectation of success because by it ensures that the multi-restaurant or multi-group order(s) is accurate and correct prior to the service provider producing the order.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radhakrishnan in view of Garcia-Brosa as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Boston et al., Pub. No. US2020/0200556A1, hereinafter referred to as Boston.
As per Claim 9, Radhakrishnan fails to explicitly disclose transmit a control signal that causes an in-vehicle device to display the experience information data when the user is in the vehicle to the vehicle and transmit a control signal that causes a terminal device owned by the user to display the experience information data to the terminal device when the user is outside the vehicle. Radhakrishnan disclose providing notifications to users.
However, Boston teaches these limitations (see at least 0017, “display via a map rendered on a user device or a navigation system of a vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Radhakrishnan and include providing an in-vehicle and mobile user interface as taught by Boston, with a reasonable expectation of success because by it is provides the user/customer with convenience by allowing them to have access to service providers while in a vehicle or mobile option when not in a vehicle.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radhakrishnan in view of Garcia-Brosa as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Taveira et al., US 20220204050 A1, hereinafter referred to as Taveira.
As per Claim 11, Radhakrishnan discloses wherein the server is configured to specifies a provider capable of providing the determined experience as the experience provider (see at least 0021, “Web browser 104 enables a user of client computer system 102 to access server computer system 106 via network 130 to set up a user profile and receive event recommendations in accordance with embodiments of the present invention. Web browser 104 also enables a user of client computer system 102 to access one or more travel service providers 122 (e.g., to plan a trip and create an itinerary), one or more social media service providers 124 (e.g., to interact with friends and colleagues), one or more ecommerce service providers 126 (e.g., to make purchases), and one or more messaging service providers 128 (e.g., to send and receive electronic messages) via network 130”).
Radhakrishnan fails to disclose: wherein the provider specification unit determines the experience according to a facility status of the user's place of stay.
However, Taveira teaches wherein the provider specification unit determines the experience according to a facility status of the user's place of stay (see at least paragraph [0074] “The user interface 240 may be coupled to the processors 220 and the memory 230, and can provide a mechanism through which a user can send commands, indications, alerts, and other information to one or more vehicles 120, and through which the user can receive status information, location information, reports, and other information from one or more vehicles 120. In some aspects, the user interface 240 may include a display screen, a keyboard, a mouse, speakers, microphones, and/or other suitable input/output mechanisms”).
Radhakrishnan discloses a method for providing event recommendations to a user by creating a tailored itinerary for the user using multiple different service providers paired with an event recommendation program. While Taveira teaches a system for optimizing route selection for autonomous vehicles configured for passenger service.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Radhakrishnan and include using the user interface that can provide status information and location information as taught by Taveira, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would improve user convenience by allowing the user to manage their travel plans and service requests based on the different status updates that the user interface can provide, which would enable more timely updates to the user’s itinerary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fadey S Jabr whose telephone number is (571)272-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00am to 4:oopm.
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, Fadey S Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
FADEY S. JABR
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668