DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 5, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-18 were previously pending. Claims 1 and 17-18 were amended in the reply filed February 5, 2026. Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejection of claim 18 made under § 101 for the claim not falling within any statutory category, and it is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 for the claims being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's argument that the claims do not recite a mental process (Remarks, 7) are unpersuasive for reasons already of record (Final Rejection mailed 11/5/2025, ¶ 6). Applicant's argument that the claims recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Remarks, 7) is also unpersuasive for reasons already of record (Final Rejection mailed 11/5/2025, ¶ 7).
"Furthermore, regarding the dependent claims, the Office Action acknowledges that the limitations of the dependent claims narrow the abstract idea, yet concludes that 'the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims (i.e., generic computers)' (See p10-11). Applicant respectfully submits that this rationale is insufficient to conclude that the dependent claims are also 'directed to' the abstract idea, i.e. - do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application." Remarks, 8. Additional elements beyond the abstract idea are required in order to demonstrate integration of an abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d) II. The dependent claims do not contain any, and instead merely add more limitations that are abstract for the same reasons as those in the independent claims. "Should the Office maintain the rejection of the dependent claims, Applicant respectfully requests an explanation of why the limitations that admittedly narrow the abstract idea are nevertheless considered meaningless." Remarks, 9. The limitations are not "meaningless" and have been fully evaluated. However, as stated in the rejection, they do not add any new additional elements and do not materially change the analysis already presented with respect to the independent claims (i.e., when evaluated together as a whole, they recite the same abstract idea being executed on the same generic computer as the independent claims). See also Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that when all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, "addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.").
Finally, Applicant's arguments regarding monopolization of the abstract idea (Remarks, 8-9) are also unpersuasive. Preemption concerns are resolved by the two-part Alice/Mayo framework and preemption is not a separate test. "[Q]uestions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis.... While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility." Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Cf. OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-1363 (Fed. Cir.) (cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 701, 193 L. Ed. 2d 522 (2015)) ("[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less abstract."). Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under § 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons already of record (Final Rejection mailed 11/5/2025, ¶ 8). "The performance metrics disclosed in Govindaraman are fundamentally different from the claimed 'proficiency' that 'indicates a level of acquisition of skills or mindsets by the user.' Govindaraman calculates metrics such as 'qualification rate' (percentage of opportunities that advanced into leads), 'closing rate' (percentage of leads converted into accounts), and 'revenue conversion rate' (average dollar amount per sales contract) (See [0042]-[0047]. These are quantitative performance outcomes, not measures of skill acquisition or mindset development." Remarks, 10. Applicant does not explain why measures of skill acquisition or mindset development cannot use quantitative performance outcomes. "Moreover, Govindaraman relates to providing coaching insights based on the user's performance metrics. Applicant respectfully submits that this is fundamentally different from searching and providing content based on the level of acquisition of skills or the mindsets by the user and knowledge information. Govindaraman does not disclose a configuration in which knowledge data is retrieved based on both proficiency, which indicates a level of acquisition of skills or mindsets by the user, and attributes or usage status of the content." Remarks, 10. Again, Applicant does not provide any reasons why these are fundamentally different. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the "units" in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-18, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims—including acquiring information indicating a proficiency of the user regarding the sales and a knowledge information, wherein the proficiency indicates a level of acquisition of skills or mindsets by the user, and wherein the knowledge information includes at least one of a knowledge attribute or a knowledge usage of a content; identifying at least one knowledge data among the plurality of knowledge data according to the acquired proficiency of the user and the acquired knowledge information, the knowledge data including the content and the knowledge information; and outputting information regarding the identified at least one knowledge data.
These limitations taken together qualify as a certain method of organizing human activities because they recite collecting, analyzing, and outputting information for improving the sales knowledge of people engaging in commercial sales activities (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including teaching and following rules or instructions). Additionally, it recites purely mental processes (e.g., a worker's supervisor observing user proficiency, evaluating it, and arriving at a judgment on knowledge data to provide to the user).
It shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see Accenture Global Services, GmbH v. Guidewire Software, 728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)—interface for generating tasks based on rules to be completed upon the occurrence of an event, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as interface for generating knowledge data based on rules to be presented upon the determination of a user proficiency; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)—tailoring sales information presented to a user based on, e.g., user data or time data, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as tailoring sales knowledge information presented to a user based on, e.g., user proficiency data; Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)—process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as process of gathering and analyzing information of a sales knowledge data, then displaying the results).
These cases describe significantly similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (servers, processor, program executed by a computer, "units"—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, "units," etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it."
Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (servers, processor, program executed by a computer, "units"—see published Specification ¶¶ 0027-30, 35 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general link to technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims (i.e., when viewed in combination they amount to nothing more than employing generic computers to perform the abstract idea).
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. They do not add any new additional elements beyond the abstract idea to be analyzed here. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Govindaraman, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0081715 (Reference A of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250516).
As per claim 1, Govindaraman teaches an information processing method that presents to a user appropriate knowledge data among a plurality of knowledge data regarding sales stored on one or more servers, the method, executed by a processor (¶¶ 0022, 98), comprising: acquiring information indicating a proficiency of the user regarding the sales and a knowledge information, wherein the proficiency indicates a level of acquisition of skills or mindsets by the user, and wherein the knowledge information includes at least one of a knowledge attribute or a knowledge usage of a content (¶¶ 0039, 55, 58); identifying at least one knowledge data among the plurality of knowledge data according to the acquired proficiency of the user and the acquired knowledge information, the knowledge data including the content and the knowledge information (¶¶ 0039, 55, 58, 71); and outputting information regarding the identified at least one knowledge data (¶¶ 0058, 71).
As per claim 2, Govindaraman teaches claim 1 as above. Govindaraman further teaches the at least one knowledge data is identified based on information on an other user having an attribute that is identical or regarding the an attribute of the user (¶¶ 0053, 89).
As per claim 3, Govindaraman teaches claim 1 as above. Govindaraman further teaches the at least one knowledge data is identified based on information regarding a task of the user (¶ 0071).
As per claim 4, Govindaraman teaches claim 1 as above. Govindaraman further teaches the at least one knowledge data is identified based on a task on the counterpart of the user (¶¶ 0053, 89).
As per claim 5, Govindaraman teaches claim 3 as above. Govindaraman further teaches the at least one knowledge data is identified based on information regarding a progress of the task (¶ 0063).
As per claim 6, Govindaraman teaches claim 1 as above. Govindaraman further teaches the at least one knowledge data is identified based on information regarding an orientation of the user (¶¶ 0058, 64).
As per claim 7, Govindaraman teaches claim 1 as above. Govindaraman further teaches the at least one knowledge data is identified based on information regarding a status of usage by the user of the knowledge data stored in the server (¶¶ 0063-64, 81).
As per claim 8, Govindaraman teaches claim 7 as above. Govindaraman further teaches acquiring information regarding the status of usage by other user that is different from the user, wherein the at least one knowledge data among the plurality of knowledge data is identified based on the acquired information regarding the status of the usage by the other user and the status of the user (¶¶ 0081, 89, 95).
As per claim 9, Govindaraman teaches claim 1 as above. Govindaraman further teaches the at least one knowledge data among the plurality of knowledge data is identified further using information regarding a status of usage of a plurality of knowledge data stored in the server (¶¶ 0081, 89, 95).
As per claim 10, Govindaraman teaches claim 9 as above. Govindaraman further teaches the status of the usage of the knowledge data includes a status of usage by other user of the knowledge data, the other user is different from the user (¶¶ 0081, 89, 95).
As per claim 11, Govindaraman teaches claim 10 as above. Govindaraman further teaches the status of the usage of the knowledge data includes evaluation information for the knowledge data by the other user (¶¶ 0081, 89-91).
As per claim 12, Govindaraman teaches claim 11 as above. Govindaraman further teaches the evaluation information for the knowledge data includes information regarding a status of the user who evaluated the knowledge data (¶¶ 0081, 89-91).
As per claim 13, Govindaraman teaches claim 1 as above. Govindaraman further teaches the processor identifies at least one knowledge data among the plurality of knowledge data based on business negotiation information (¶ 0063).
As per claim 14, Govindaraman teaches claim 13 as above. Govindaraman further teaches the business negotiation information includes at least one of customer information regarding a business negotiation, product information regarding a business negotiation, and information regarding a phase of business negotiation (¶ 0063), wherein the processor identifies at least one knowledge data among the plurality of knowledge data based on at least one or a combination of the customer information regarding the negotiation, the product information regarding the negotiation, and the information regarding the phase of the negotiation (¶¶ 0063, 86-89).
As per claim 15, Govindaraman teaches claim 1 as above. Govindaraman further teaches a learning course to be taken by the user is determined based on information regarding the acquired status of the user (¶¶ 0039, 64, 81).
As per claim 16, Govindaraman teaches claim 1 as above. Govindaraman further teaches the knowledge data includes knowledge data regarding sales performed by an organization who owns the knowledge data and/or knowledge data regarding the organization (¶¶ 0063, 71, 81).
As per claim 17, Govindaraman teaches an information processing system that presents to a user appropriate knowledge data among a plurality of knowledge data regarding sales stored on one or more servers, the system comprising: units for implementing the steps of analogous claim 1 (¶¶ 0022, 98; see also citations above).
As per claim 18, Govindaraman teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for making an information processing system, that presents to a user appropriate knowledge data among a plurality of knowledge data regarding sales stored on one or more servers, the program executed by a computer makes the computer function: units for implementing the steps of analogous claim 1 (¶¶ 0022, 98; see also citations above).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628