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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to JP2023-041914, filed 3/16/2023. The certified copy has been received in the file as of 4/8/2024.
Claims Status
Claim 7 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 remain pending and stand rejected.
Response to Amendment
Title
Applicant’s amendment to the title is acknowledged. The previous objection is withdrawn.
Claims
In view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims – as well as the amendments in Application Nos. 18/603,242 and 18/603,296 - are acknowledged. These amendments are effective to obviate the provisional double patenting rejection, which is hereby vacated.
Response to Arguments
I. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant attempts to couch the claims in terms of improving “automated age-restricted sales in unmanned environments”. While the Examiner appreciates these arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and emphasizes that the manner in which the claims are written does not parallel or resemble the myriad of precedential court decisions – such as McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., et al. - in which the courts determined that the claims were eligible.
The Examiner underscores the high-level of generality of the claimed computerized components for which the claims provide no restriction on the underlying technical operations of the devices utilized by the claimed invention, nor do they otherwise provide any technical specificity with respect to their operation. Moreover, neither do the claims reflect a particular manner of mediating communications amongst devices or otherwise provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components. Instead, the claims set forth only at a high-level their use in facilitating the abstract procedure for selling specific commodities based on age verification.
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Further, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Secondly, assuming arguendo the specification reflect an improvement in age-verification and specific commodity purchasing – i.e., the abstract idea – as written the claims only improve upon the abstract idea itself. This is again because the claims recite generic hardware components at a high level of generality. A review of the specification also reveals that the hardware components relied upon in the claims are well-known components (e.g., known types of customer detection sensors and commodity detection sensors are discussed in 0014-0015, while Fig. 14 and 0106-01115 describe generic computing hardware that is utilized for management apparatus 100, settlement apparatus 200, qualification information reader 300, specific commodity discharge apparatus 400, and specific commodity selection device 500).
The Examiner further emphasizes the lack of interoperability of the generic hardware components within the claims. That is, the claims set forth little to no details for the manner by which the devices communicate or cause respective functions on the devices to be performed in such a way that the claims would be considered to go beyond merely implementing the abstract idea on a computer. This is most prominently exemplified by the relationship between the following limitations:
a confirmation device including first processing circuitry configured to, when the customer detection sensor detects that the customer has entered the store, perform a confirmation process to confirm whether the customer satisfies an age verification to purchase a specific commodity;
a commodity handling device configured to make the specific commodity selectable for the customer in a case that the age verification is confirmed by the confirmation device.
In these limitations we see no interoperation between the confirmation device or the commodity handling device. Perhaps more importantly, the claims contain no restriction on the manner by which the specific commodity is made “selectable”. As written, this is little more than allowing or disallowing the selection of the specific commodity sans any specific operations performed by the confirmation device or commodity handling device to make said specific commodity selectable.
In summary, the Examiner holds that the specification as filed does not appear to provide sufficient detail for improving the computer itself or another technology or technical field. At best, the abstract idea of age verification and specific commodity purchasing is generally linked to the field of use or technological environment of “unmanned environments”. Even assuming arguendo an improvement to the computer or another technology or technical field exists in the specification (which the Examiner does not acquiesce), the Examiner reiterates that the claims fail to reflect such an improvement because of their broad and highly-generalized implementation using generic computing components. That is, as written the claims are nothing more than the instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of age verification and specific commodity purchasing.
To further this point, the Examiner draws Applicant’s attention to DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, where the claims addressed a problem specific to the routine functionality of a link (i.e. a user is directed away from the current page to the site of another merchant). The claims of DDR Holdings specified how interactions with the computer/Internet were manipulated to create a composite/hybrid page that prevented the user from being directed to the outside merchant, therein overriding the routine function of the link.
As noted above, the claims of the instant application, lack any restriction on the manner in which the computing operations are to be performed. The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is much more akin to the claims in Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims contained no restriction on the manner in which the additional elements perform these claimed functions).
As another example, Applicant’s attention is also drawn to Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, the courts found the claims to be directed to the abstract idea of “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data.” 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words “apply it”. 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims “so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem”)).
Ultimately, a review of the claims and specification reveals a similar lack of restriction as discussed in Internet Patents and Intellectual Ventures. Although the Examiner appreciates the arguments set forth by Applicant, the Examiner maintains that the evidence at hand demonstrates that the invention fails to provide the requisite detail and technical explanation with respect to the alleged improvements in order to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the claimed invention achieves an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or another technology or technical field.
Lastly, with respect to In re Desjardins, the Examiner first notes the fact pattern employed in Desjardins (which is specific to the technical field of machine learning) is not applicable to the claims at hand. As it pertains to the general fact pattern discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (discussed above) the Examiner maintains that the claimed invention does not reflect such an improvement as necessary to confer eligibility.
Similar analysis is applicable with respect to Applicant’s arguments under Step 2B. With specific reference to Bascom, the Examiner again disagrees. The focus of the court was the installation of the filtering tool at a specific location, which represented a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces" resulting in a technical improvement. Neither the claims at issue, nor Applicant’s specification, purport to offer a “non-conventional” arrangement of components like that of Bascom. Secondly, the non-conventional arrangement in Bascom resulted in particular technical improvements (e.g. providing Internet-content filtering in a manner that can be customized for the person attempting to access such content while avoiding the need for (potentially millions of) local servers or computers to perform such filtering and while being less susceptible to circumvention by the user). Neither Applicant’s claims nor Applicant’s specification offer or otherwise discuss improvements similar to those in Bascom, or otherwise discuss an “unconventional” arrangement as noted by the court.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained below.
II. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Examiner Comment – Potential Eligible Subject Matter
The Examiner draws attention to Fig. 8 and paragraphs 0055, 0062, and 0065, which discuss aspects for controlling a specific commodity discharge apparatus. Such subject matter may aid in overcoming the rejection under 35 USC 101 if claimed properly with support for interoperability with the other hardware currently claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites “the qualification certifying matter includes information on the purchase qualification”. Claim 5 has is dependent from claim 1, which has been amended to remove references to qualification certifying matter and purchase qualification. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these terms in claim 5.
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 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-6 and 8-11, under Step 2A claims 1-6 and 8-11 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites a commodity sales system for selling a specific commodity for which a purchase qualification needs to be confirmed when the specific commodity is sold to a customer,
detect that the customer has entered a store;
detect a commodity that the customer takes from a commodity shelf in the store;
when the customer has entered the store, perform a confirmation process to confirm whether the customer satisfies an age verification to purchase a specific commodity;
make the specific commodity selectable for the customer in a case that the purchase qualification is confirmed by the confirmation process;
add, to an object of transaction with the customer, the commodity detected and the specific commodity selected; and
delete the age verification after the customer leaves the store;
perform a settlement process for an amount of transaction with the customer, for the commodities that the management apparatus has added to the object of transaction.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because claim 1 sets forth and/or describes commodity sales and verifying the age of customers for the purchase of specific commodities. This represents the performance of marketing or sales activities or behaviors, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including a customer detection sensor, a commodity detection sensor, a confirmation device including processing circuitry, a commodity handling device, a management apparatus including processing circuitry, and, a settlement apparatus including processing circuitry.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) 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.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-6 and 8-10, dependent claims 2-6 and 8-10 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 2-6 and 8-10 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-6 and 8-10 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, claims 2-6 and 8-10 rely on at least the additional elements of claim 1, which are recited at a high level of generality. Further additional elements such as a locked/unlocked storage device (claim 2) and a selection device (claim 3) are also recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-6 and 8-10 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-6 and 8-10 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claim 11 (method), claim 11 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claim 11 is rejected under at least similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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) 1-2, 4-6, 8-10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaser (US 2023/0153878) in view of Howard (US 2023/0074732) and Ogasawara (US 2002/0016740).
Regarding claim 1, Glaser discloses a commodity sales system (e.g., Fig. 1, Fig. 5-6, Fig. 10, 0022-0025) comprising:
a commodity detection sensor to detect a commodity that the customer takes from a commodity shelf in the store (see: 0046-0047, 0068, 0080, 0094, Fig. 3 (s110));
a confirmation device including first processing circuitry configured to perform a confirmation process to confirm whether the customer satisfies an age verification to purchase a specific commodity (see: 0022 (trigger authorization process through worker device), 0044, 0050-0051, Fig. 5-6 (complete authorization before badging out));
a management apparatus including second processing circuitry configured to add, to an object of transaction with the customer, the commodity detected by commodity detection sensor, and the specific commodity selected with the commodity handling device (see: 030-0031 (virtual cart, i.e. checkout list), 0068-0069); and,
a settlement apparatus including third processing circuitry configured to perform a settlement process for an amount of transaction with the customer, for the commodities that the management apparatus has added to the object of transaction (see: 0045 (payment mechanism to be used with the checkout process), 0054 (executing checkout process to complete transaction for purchase), 0067 (checkout process, billed using a stored payment mechanism), 0099 (supplying payment information so that it can be applied to the checkout processing), Fig. 4 (s140)).
Though disclosing all of the above for enabling automated purchase of age restricted in-store, Glaser does not teach:
a customer detection sensor to detect that a customer has entered a store,
performing the confirmation process when the customer detection sensor detects that the customer has entered the store, or,
a commodity handling device configured to make the specific commodity selectable for the customer in a case that the age verification is confirmed by the confirmation device;
To this accord, Howard teaches
a customer detection sensor to detect that a customer has entered a store (see: 0025, 0054, 0060 (customer is in the store), 0110 (upon entering a store), 0112, 0125);
performing the confirmation process when the customer detection sensor detects that the customer has entered the store (see: 0020 (facial recognition for age verification), 0055 (facial wallet with age verification), 0130 (age verification for purchase of age restricted product), 0132 (age verified customer)), and,
a commodity handling device configured to make the specific commodity selectable for the customer in a case that the age verification is confirmed by the confirmation device (see: 0021 (locked cabinet, within a smart shelving unit), 0099 (locked initially, unlocked automatically), 0104 (unlock in real-time for age-verified customer), 0132 (automatically grant access)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Glaser to have utilized the known technique detecting customers and making commodities available through the use of a commodity handling device as taught by Howard in order to have furthered removed obstacles in relation to the sale and purchase of age restricted products, thereby enabling the retailer of Glaser to have increased operational efficiencies, created more intimate customer experiences, streamlined processes, and provided real-time understanding of customer behavior in their stores (see: Howard: 0004).
Lastly, though disclosing a management apparatus for adding detected commodities to a transaction, Glaser does not disclose that the management server is configured to delete the age verification after the customer leaves the store. Glaser notably discloses the age verification in a data record associated with a customer cart (e.g., 0050).
To this accord, Ogasawara teaches an in-store checkout system which deletes, after the settlement process, information on the customer which has been acquired by the store device(s) (see: 0019, 0067, claim 23), the information including customer ID and relevant customer information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Glaser to have applied the known technique for deleting information on the customer, as taught by Ogasawara, to the age verification of Glaser in order to have enabled Glaser to have conserved valuable memory storage space in the management system (see: Ogasawara: 0019).
2. The commodity sales system according to claim 1, wherein
the commodity handling device is a storage device that is locked to prevent the specific commodity from being taken out, and the storage device is unlocked when adding the specific commodity to the object of transaction by the customer whose purchase qualification has been confirmed (see: Howard: 0021, 0048, 0099, 0104, 0132).
4. The commodity sales system according to claim 1, wherein the second processing circuitry deletes, after the settlement process, information on the customer which has been acquired by the confirmation device (see: Ogasawara: 0019, 0067, claim 23).
5. The commodity sales system according to claim 1, wherein
the qualification certifying matter includes information on the purchase qualification, and the second processing circuitry performs the confirmation process, based on the information read by the confirmation device (see: Howard: 0023, 0053-0055; 0044, 0051, 0102).
6. The commodity sales system according to claim 1, wherein the confirmation device displays a result of the confirmation process (see: Glaser: 0042, 0058, 0102, 0106, Fig. 5-6, Fig. 10).
Note: after authorization, a user is provided with the screen including ‘Walk out or badge out when you’re ready!”, indicating completion of authorization for the restricted item.
8. The commodity sales system according to claim 1, wherein the commodity handling device includes the confirmation device (see: Howard: Fig. 5, 0088-0089).
9. The commodity sales system according to claim 1, wherein the specific commodity is an age-limited commodity for which age of purchasers is limited (see: Glaser: 0004, 0022, 0033; See alternatively: Howard: 0020-0025, 0055, Fig. 4A-4D).
10. The commodity sales system according to claim 9, wherein the specific commodity includes at least one of alcohol and cigarettes (see: Glaser: 0004, 0022, 0033; See alternatively: Howard: 0055 (alcoholic beverage, a liquor, a spirit, a tobacco product, theft-susceptible products, pharmaceutical products, and/or any other similar age restricted product and/or service such as a lottery ticket or the like), Fig. 4A-4D).
Regarding claim 11 (method), claim 1 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claim 11 is rejected under at least similar rationale.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaser in view of Howard and Ogasawara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katayama (US 2019/0259014).
Regarding claim 3, Glaser in view of Howard and Ogasawara teaches all of the above as noted but does not teach the commodity handling device is a selection device that displays a selection screen for purchase commodities, and the specific commodity is displayed on the selection screen in a selectable manner when adding the specific commodity by the customer whose purchase qualification has been confirmed.
To this accord, Katayama teaches an age verification checkout system including wherein the commodity handling device is a selection device that displays a selection screen for purchase commodities, and the specific commodity is displayed on the selection screen in a selectable manner when adding the specific commodity by the customer whose purchase qualification has been confirmed (see: 0119-0120, 0136 (when age verification is passed, display a cigarette menu), 0223, Fig. 3 (631)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Glaser in view of Howard and Ogasawara to have used the known technique for making commodities selectable as taught by Katayama in order to have provided a menu of items once age verification is passed, thereby enabling the shopper to readily select from available restricted items while reducing labor of persons (see: Katayama: 0120, 0035).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Benschop (US 2013/0218774) discloses an in-store shopping system that processes age verification requests containing customer images by temporarily storing the image deleting the customer image in response to settling the age verification request. (see: 0029 (temporarily stores), 0030 (stored for the duration of the transaction), claim 10).
Patel (US 12045024) discloses a controlled dispensing system with age verification (see: abstract, Fig. 13).
PTO form 892-U discusses performing frictionless checkout/no touch checkout without using cameras and lots of visual analytics (see: abstract).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619