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 .
Notice to Applicant
This is the first Non-Final Office Action in response to Application Serial Number: 18/593,363, filed on March 01, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Priority
The Examiner has noted the Applicant is claiming Priority from Provisional Application 63/487,719 filed March 01, 2023.
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.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 1-7 are directed towards a computer-implemented method, claims 8-14 are directed towards a computing device and claims 15-20 are directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite converting roster data from a first configuration into a second configuration.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on mental processes. Specifically, identifying a plurality of first roster systems, each first roster system associated with a unit of a provider system; and for each first roster system: accessing a roster data of the first roster system, each entry of the roster data comprising at least a time range and an identifier, the identifier comprising one or more of a role identifier, a location identifier, or a provider identifier; converting the roster data from a first roster configuration into a second roster configuration; and recording the converted roster data in a second roster system constitutes methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of a computing device does not take the claim out of the certain methods of mental processes grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 8 and 15 recite certain method of organizing human activity for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites computing device at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generic computer components used as a tool to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and therefore is directed to an abstract idea. The computing device comprising one or more processors in communication with one or more memories recited in claim 8 and non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executed by one or more processors of a computing device in claim 15 also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements recited in claims 8 and 15 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, computing device comprising one or more processors in communication with one or more memories and non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executed by one or more processors of a computing device amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims,. Claim 3 (similarity claims 10 and 17) recites rout, by the computing device, a message from the user device to the target device, which is considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 19 and 20 recite additional element limitations that amount to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16-18 and 20 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in the independent claims. Therefore claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kharraz Tavakol, U.S. Publication No. 2015/0112696 [hereinafter Tavakol].
Referring to Claim 1, Tavakol teaches:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
identifying, by a computing device, a plurality of first roster systems, each first roster system associated with a unit of a provider system (Tavakol, [0082]), “a server 12 that ingests available appointment data via a web crawler 7, 8 or API 9 from multiple unaffiliated sources 14, 16, 18, here identified as Company A, Company B, and Doctor X office respectively. Each source may be an aggregated source of appointment availability data from multiple unaffiliated providers (e.g., Company A), or an unaggregated source of doctor availability data from one provider or one practice group (e.g., Doctor X office)”; (Tavakol, [0017]), “an ingestion module configured to locate and retrieve healthcare appointment availability data from a plurality of disparate sources”; (Tavakol, [0081]; [0136]); and
for each first roster system:
accessing by the computing device, a roster data of the first roster system, each entry of the roster data comprising at least a time range and an identifier, the identifier comprising one or more of a role identifier, a location identifier, or a provider identifier (Tavakol, [0111]), “healthcare appointment availability information system 100 is connected to a network 101 that allows remote access from and to the system so that healthcare appointment availability information can be retrieved and published, to allow bookings at remote sites, and to process user-source communications. The network allows the system 100 or administrators thereof, such as analyst 102, to access the remote sources 105-106 which include both aggregated sources of healthcare appointment availability information, and primary sources of healthcare appointment availability information… the network 101 allows users 103 to access the system 100 and obtain information provided thereby via a terminal 104”; (Tavakol, [0118]), “…a third party website with healthcare provider availability information, and other provider data, that the ingestion module 110 can access (e.g., parse) to collect data for subsequent processing and storage on the system 100…Below the running head 461 are text, photos and graphics describing one individual provider 465 and his provider profile information 466-470. This hospital directory includes a listing 464 of available appointments with the provider for online booking. The profile information includes the provider's name 465, contact information 466, link to the provider's practice group website 467, specialties 468, department 469 and job title 470. Window 472 is a street map identifying one or more locations of the provider's offices…”; (Tavakol, [0089]), “The timeslot record further includes a professionalId 52, which is a unique identifier of the healthcare provider (having the associated available time block). The next field, entitled remoteSiteId 53, is a unique identifier of the source of availability data contained in the record. The next field, locationId 54, is a unique identifier of the geographic location of the provider office for the appointment at the time identified in the record. The next field, startTime 55, is the start of the available time block for an office appointment with the designated provider…. The next field, procedurelds[ ] 57, is an array of the procedures that can be booked during this time block (e.g., as allowed by the associated provider). The next field, patientTypes[ ] 58, is an array of the patient types that can be seen during this time block”; (Tavakol, [0087]-[0088]; [0090]; [0097]);
converting, by the computing device, the roster data from a first roster configuration into a second roster configuration; and recording, by the computing device, the converted roster data in a second roster system (Tavakol, [0087]), “ingesting and mapping provider availability data from multiple sources into a common format for storing and filtering”; (Tavakol, [0083]), “The server 12 includes processing and storage modules that receive 12a the ingested data and transform 12b the ingested data into a common format that can be searched by the system filters 12c…The data transformation resolves discrepancies and generates unique (non-duplicate) appointment data records 34 (see FIG. 2) that can be filtered by common formatted parameters, and then stores the mapped (transformed) data records 34 on a storage system 12d. Thus, when a system user (patient) requests a search for available appointment times according to the user's specified criteria, the system already holds (stores) a plurality of records in a common format that can be searched (filtered) for responding to the user's search request”; (Tavakol, [0116]), “mapping sub-module 132 also receives and processes provider data received from sources 105 and 106, which is also mapped into a common format and stored as provider data 143 on storage module 140”; (Tavakol, [0124]), “the ingested data from the multiple sources is mapped (transformed) to common formatted parameters and the mapped data is stored on the storage system”; (Tavakol, [0115]).
Referring to Claim 2, Tavakol teaches the method of claim 1. Tavakol further teaches:
further comprising: accessing, by the computing device, the converted roster data (Tavakol, [0083]), “The server 12 includes processing and storage modules that receive 12a the ingested data and transform 12b the ingested data into a common format that can be searched by the system filters 12c… Thus, when a system user (patient) requests a search for available appointment times according to the user's specified criteria, the system already holds (stores) a plurality of records in a common format that can be searched (filtered) for responding to the user's search request”; (Tavakol, [0116]).
Referring to Claim 4, Tavakol teaches the method of claim 1. Tavakol further teaches:
wherein the roster data of the first roster system is accessed via a network connection (Tavakol, [0111]), “The healthcare appointment availability information system 100 is connected to a network 101 that allows remote access from and to the system so that healthcare appointment availability information can be retrieved and published, to allow bookings at remote sites, and to process user-source communications… the network 101 allows users 103 to access the system 100 and obtain information provided thereby via a terminal 104”; (Tavakol, [0081]; [0121]).
Referring to Claim 5, Tavakol teaches the method of claim 1. Tavakol further teaches:
further comprising:
sorting, by the computing device, the converted roster data into an ordered list, wherein a field of each entry of the converted roster data is sorted into a numerical order or a lexicographical order, the each entry of the converted roster data comprising one or more fields of data (Tavakol, Fig. 9, [0123]), “a webpage 310 (interactive user interface) for entering search requests and displaying search results in response to a user input search criteria 312… The next three days are sequentially displayed across the page, with available appointment starting time slots 315 listed below the relevant day and aligned with the respective provider”.
Referring to Claim 8, Tavakol teaches:
A computing device, comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors in communication with the one or more memories and configured to perform operations to (Tavakol, [0135]):
Claim 1 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 1, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 9 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 2, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 11 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 4, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 12 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 5, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Referring to Claim 15, Tavakol teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a plurality of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing device (Tavakol, [0135]; [0137]), cause the one or more processors to perform operations to:
Claim 15 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 1, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 16 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 2, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 18 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 5, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
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.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kharraz Tavakol, U.S. Publication No. 2015/0112696 [hereinafter Tavakol], and further in view of Loeffen, U.S. Publication No. 2012/0066015 [hereinafter Loeffen].
Referring to Claim 3, Tavakol teaches the method of claim 2. Tavakol further teaches:
wherein accessing the converted roster data comprises:
receiving, by the computing device, a target time and a target identifier from a user device (Tavakol, [0083]), “when a system user (patient) requests a search for available appointment times according to the user's specified criteria, the system already holds (stores) a plurality of records in a common format that can be searched (filtered) for responding to the user's search request. In another embodiment, the raw ingested data is transformed and filtered on the fly (at the time of the user request, rather than filtering previously transformed and stored data)”; (Tavakol, [0094]), “set of search filters for filtering the system's stored availability data in response to a user's search request. The filter names (search parameters) are generally indicative of the function/description and include, for a given provider, one or more: Specialty 61; Location 62; Insurance Carrier 63 and Insurance Plan 64 (accepted by the provider); Visit Reason 65 (which the provider has designated as appropriate); Professional Name 66 (of the provider) and Practice Name 67 (of provider's practice group); Gender 68 (of the professional); Patient Age Range 69 (of patients that the professional accepts); Hospital Affiliation 70; Education 71 (including medical school); Board Certifications 72; Languages Spoken 73; and availability 74 (the dates and times the professional has available appointments)”; (Tavakol, [0098]; [0126]); and
identifying, by the computing device, a target entry using the target time and the target identifier, wherein the target entry is associated with a target device (Tavakol, [0115]), “The filtering produces a set of available appointment times that best satisfy the user's search request parameters. These appointment times are published via interface module 150 for review and selection by the user 103 of a desired published appointment time. A booking module 136 receives and processes the user's booking request to schedule an appointment at the selected appointment time, by booking the requested appointment time with the source on behalf of the user”; (Tavakol, [0089]-[0090]; [0125]).
Tavakol teaches the system communicates confirmation of the booked appointment to the user (e.g., via the interface or other electronic communication means such as email or text message) (see par. 0092), but Tavakol does not explicitly teach:
routing, by the computing device, a message from the user device to the target device.
However Loeffen teaches:
routing, by the computing device, a message from the user device to the target device (Loeffen, [0067]), “Once the information has been entered, at block 490, the service provider and client receive an appointment confirmation either by email, fax, or text message. The process ends at block 497”; (Loeffen, [0111]), “The confirmation module 750 may be any combination of software agents and/or hardware components able to send email, fax, and/or text messages to confirm appointments and to remind clients and service providers of upcoming appointments”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified confirmation in Tavakol to include the routing limitation as taught by Loeffen. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of accessing to and booking of healthcare appointments from multiple disparate platforms in Tavakol (see par. 0001) to include the results of allowing users to obtain accurate and current information about the availability of desired services (see Loeffen par. 0026).
Claim 10 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 3, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 17 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 3, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kharraz Tavakol, U.S. Publication No. 2015/0112696 [hereinafter Tavakol], and further in view of Detwiler, U.S. Patent No. 9,942,169 [hereinafter Detwiler].
Referring to Claim 6, Tavakol teaches the method of claim 5. Tavakol teaches a search harvester tool for collecting the available time and provider data. A search harvester refers to any engine program or tool capable of programmatically retrieving information according to input parameters, and processing the search results to ensure that only some particular types of information from the search results is provided as the output (see par. 0119) but Tavakol does not explicitly teach:
further comprising: performing, by the computing device, a half-interval operation to locate a target entry in the ordered list.
However Detwiler teaches:
further comprising:
performing, by the computing device, a half-interval operation to locate a target entry in the ordered list (Detwiler, [col. 18, ln. 62]-[col. 19, ln. 29]), “each stage 321-324 uses a half-interval search algorithm in order to search the list of entries in which a path identifier may be found… the stage 321 narrows the range of possible entries to half of the total entries in the forwarding table 84. The result of this analysis is passed to the control circuitry 352, which then performs a similar half-interval search algorithm on the range of possible entries indicated by the result of the analysis performed by the control circuitry 351…”; (Detwiler, [col. 22, ln. 21-46]), “each stage 321-323 performs a half-interval search algorithm or some other desired search algorithm in order to determine a respective portion of the address that should be storing the path identifier of interest assuming that the path identifier of interest is, in fact, stored in the forwarding table 84”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the search harvester in Tavakol to include the half-interval limitation as taught by Detwiler. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of accessing to and booking of healthcare appointments from multiple disparate platforms in Tavakol (see par. 0001) to include the results of efficiently search for and read an entry of interest (see Detwiler col. 17, ln. 47).
Referring to Claim 7, Tavakol in view of Detwiler teaches the method of claim 6. Tavakol teaches a search harvester tool for collecting the available time and provider data. A search harvester refers to any engine program or tool capable of programmatically retrieving information according to input parameters, and processing the search results to ensure that only some particular types of information from the search results is provided as the output (see par. 0119) but Tavakol does not explicitly teach:
wherein performing the half-interval operation comprises, iteratively performing until the target entry is located in the ordered list:
identifying, by the computing device, an operation entry in an operation set comprising one or more entries of the ordered list;
dividing, by the computing device, the operation set into a first set and a second set, wherein the operation entry separates the first set and the second set, wherein the first set and the second set are each a plurality of contiguous entries in the ordered list and the operation entry is contiguous with the first set and the second set;
determining, by the computing device, that the target entry is in the first set; and
designating, by the computing device, the first set as the operation set.
However Detwiler further teaches:
wherein performing the half-interval operation comprises, iteratively performing until the target entry is located in the ordered list:
identifying, by the computing device, an operation entry in an operation set comprising one or more entries of the ordered list; dividing, by the computing device, the operation set into a first set and a second set, wherein the operation entry separates the first set and the second set, wherein the first set and the second set are each a plurality of contiguous entries in the ordered list and the operation entry is contiguous with the first set and the second set; determining, by the computing device, that the target entry is in the first set; and designating, by the computing device, the first set as the operation set (Detwiler, [col. 18, ln. 62]-[col. 19, ln. 29]), “Note that various types of search algorithms may be used by the stages 321-324. In one exemplary embodiment, each stage 321-324 uses a half-interval search algorithm in order to search the list of entries in which a path identifier may be found. In this regard, the path identifiers in the forwarding table 84 (which are used as keys to find the entry of interest) are sorted in ascending or descending order. The memory device 331 of the first stage 321 stores the path identifier of the entry at the midpoint of the forwarding table 84 (i.e., the entry halfway between the beginning and end of the forwarding table 84), and the control circuitry 351 is configured to compare the path identifier of interest to the one stored in the memory device 331 in order to determine whether the path identifier of interest is in the upper half or lower half of the forwarding table 84. Thus, the stage 321 narrows the range of possible entries to half of the total entries in the forwarding table 84. The result of this analysis is passed to the control circuitry 352, which then performs a similar half-interval search algorithm on the range of possible entries indicated by the result of the analysis performed by the control circuitry 351, thereby reducing the range of possible entries to one-quarter (i.e., half of the range indicated by the previous stage 321) of the total entries in the forwarding table 84. This process continues stage-by-stage, further narrowing the range of possible entries, until the path identifier of interest is found in the memory devices 331-333 or until the range of possible entries is reduced to one. Thus, the number of stages 321-324 may be based on the size of the forwarding table 84 such that the result of the half-interval search algorithm performed by the penultimate stage 323 reduces the range of possible entries to one, assuming that a hit is not found by a stage prior to the last stage. At this point, the control circuitry 354 can analyze this one entry to determine whether there is a forwarding-table hit or miss”; (Detwiler, [col. 22, ln. 21-46]), “each stage 321-323 performs a half-interval search algorithm or some other desired search algorithm in order to determine a respective portion of the address that should be storing the path identifier of interest assuming that the path identifier of interest is, in fact, stored in the forwarding table 84. In the embodiment described above where there are sixteen total entries in the forwarding table 84, each stage determines one respective bit of the address…”; (Detwiler, [col. 21, ln. 36-55]; [col. 17, ln. 45-63]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the search harvester in Tavakol to include the half-interval limitations as taught by Detwiler. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of accessing to and booking of healthcare appointments from multiple disparate platforms in Tavakol (see par. 0001) to include the results of efficiently search for and read an entry of interest (see Detwiler col. 17, ln. 47).
Claim 13 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 6, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 14 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 7, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 19 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 6, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 20 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 7, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rice (US 20220108790 A1) - A system and method for coordinating physician matching for a user. The system including an interface configured to receive preference data related to the user. The system further includes a physician recommendation module being applied to the preference data and corresponding physician data. The physician recommendation module can track the preference data received by the interface, compare the preference data to the corresponding physician data, and recommend a list of physicians to the user when the physician data is above a threshold value. A display coupled to the recommendation module and configured to display the list of physicians to the user.
Schoenberg (AU 2012216577 A1) – A request is received from a consumer of services to consult with a service provider having a service provider profile that satisfies at least some attributes in a set of attributes that define a suitable service provider; an available service 5 provider satisfying at least some of the attributes in the set of attributes is identified; and a communication channel is provided to establish a communication between the consumer of services and the identified service provider.
Mahanthi et al. (Transforming Traditional Medical Appointment Booking with Advanced Technologies and User-Centric Design) – Life gets too busy to go to a doctor in character and keep up with the right hospital therapy. The most important motive of this work is to offer patients quite simple and luxurious experience during the appointment with the physician, as well as to addressing the questions that the sufferers provide during the appointment. The Find-My-Doctor acts as a client, and is maintained with the aid of an internet site that acts as a server and at the same time a database containing medical records, doctors, patients, and appointment statistics. The present-day widespread working procedures for registering patients and making appointments are time-eating and extremely cumbersome. Find-My-Doctor is an internet-based application designed to streamline the appointment procedure for more than one scientific/healthcare institution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Patty Munson can be reached at (571)270-5396. 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.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624