DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/02/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In light of the amendments, claims 1, 21-22, 24-25, 27-32, 34-35, and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
In light of the amendments, claims 23, 26, 33, and 36 do not have art rejections.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 04/02/2026, the following has occurred: claim 1 has been amended; claims 2-20 have been canceled; and claims 21-39 have been added.
Claims 1 and 21-39 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 09/29/2021
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Applicant states that the claims recite an electronic device for presenting recommendations for relieving depression. Examiner however respectfully disagrees. Though the claims do indeed recite the electronic device, it is done so in an “apply it” manner. Furthermore, the claims do include an abstract idea in the form of determining depression and providing recommendations to address the detected depression.
Applicant also states that the claims are integrated into a practical application and further states that the combination of features in claim 1 reflect a technological improvement that results in a practical application. Examiner however respectfully disagrees. Initially what is the technical problem and technical solution? Is there specification support? The determination of depression using data and then suggestion of a recommendation to address this data may be viewed as an improvement, but an improvement to the abstract idea of how to assess and address depression.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant argues with respect to the newly amended claim language and states that the previous references do not teach them. The claims have been addressed using updated art rejections. Additionally, claims 23, 26, 33, and 36 were not given art rejections in view of the combination of references which could be used to reject these claims being unreasonable.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-13 are drawn to a device, claims 14-18 are drawn to a method, and claims 19-20 are drawn to a media, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-20 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a) an electronic device comprising:
a1) a display,
a2) at least one sensor,
a3) memory storing one or more computer programs, and
a4) one or more processors comprising processing circuitry, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
1) obtain, via the at least one sensor, sensing data,
2) determine, based on the sensing data, depression data of a user of the electronic device,
3) identify that the depression data is within a reference range,
4) based on the depression data being within the reference range, activate a setting for displaying an object indicating b) a first application recommended for relieving depression of the user on a1a) a home screen,
5) after the setting for displaying the object on the home screen is activated, receive an input to switch the display from an inactive state to an active state, and
6) based on the input, 6a) display, via the display, the object indicating the first application on the home screen, according to the activated setting.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) obtain sensing data, 2) determine, based on the sensing data, depression data of a user of the electronic device, 3) identify that the depression data is within a reference range, 4) based on the depression data being within the reference range, activate a setting for displaying an object indicating a first application recommended for relieving depression of the user, 5) after the setting for displaying the object is activated, receive an input to switch the display from an inactive state to an active state, and 6a) display the object indicating the first application, according to the activated setting. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes determining depression and providing recommendations to address the depression. Independent claims 30 and 39 recite similar limitations and are also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 21-29 and 31-38 include all of the limitations of claims 1 and 30, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 21 and 31 add the additional step of “receive an input on the object, and in response to the input on the object, execute the first application for relieving the depression of the user”; claims 22 and 32 add the additional step of “after the object is displayed on the home screen, identify that the depression data is maintained within the reference range, and based on identifying that the depression data is maintained within the reference range, maintain the display of the object on the home screen”; claims 23 and 33 add the additional steps of “after the object is displayed on the home screen, identify that the depression data deviates from the reference range”, “deactivate the setting for displaying the object on the home screen”, “activate a setting for displaying another object indicating a second application distinct from the first application on the home screen”, and “in response to an input to switch the display from the inactive state to the active state, display, based on the activated setting for displaying the another object on the home screen, the another object indicating the second application on the home screen via the display”; claims 24 and 34 add the additional steps of “while the object indicating the first application is displayed on the home screen, receive an input to display an application list screen including a plurality of executable objects related to a plurality of applications stored in the memory”, and “in response to the input to display the application list screen, display the application list screen including the plurality of executable objects including a first executable object for the first application, wherein a first executable object displayed on the application list screen is visually highlighted relative to remaining executable objects among the plurality of executable objects”; claims 26 and 36 adds the additional steps of “identify that the physical data is within a first reference range and the psychological data is within a second reference range”, and “based on the physical data being within the first reference range and the psychological data being within the second reference range, identify that the depression data is within the reference range”; and claims 27 and 37 add the additional step of “in response to the input, before displaying the home screen, display a guidance screen indicating that the object indicating the first application is to be displayed on the home screen”. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 25, 28-29, 35, and 38 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 21-29 and 31-38 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 30 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) an electronic device comprising: a1) a display with a1a) a home screen, a2) at least one sensor, a3) memory storing one or more computer programs, and a4) one or more processors communicatively coupled to the display, the at least one sensor and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions, b) a first application, c) a second application (from claims 23 and 33), and d) a communication circuit (from Claim 2) to perform the claimed steps.
The claims also include the additional element step of 6) “based on the input, display, via the display, the object”.
The a) electronic device comprising: a1) a display with a1a) a home screen, a3) memory storing one or more computer programs, and a4) one or more processors communicatively coupled to the display, the at least one sensor and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions and d) communication circuit in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, paragraphs [0042] and [0045] where there are generic computer components listed, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The a2) at least one sensor in these steps and the additional element step of 6) “based on the input, display, via the display, the object” adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering (a2)) and insignificant application (6)), see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the b) first application and c) second application in these steps generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. 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 and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a) an electronic device comprising: a1) a display with a1a) a home screen, a2) at least one sensor, a3) memory storing one or more computer programs, and a4) one or more processors communicatively coupled to the display, the at least one sensor and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions, b) a first application, c) a second application, and d) a communication circuit to perform the claimed steps and the additional element step of 6) “based on the input, display, via the display, the object” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity), a general linking to a particular technological field, and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), and MPEP 2106.05(h) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The current invention generates displays data on a display utilizing a) an electronic device comprising: a1) a display with a1a) a home screen, a3) memory storing one or more computer programs, and a4) one or more processors communicatively coupled to the display, the at least one sensor and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions and d) a communication circuit, thus these computing devices are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, the a2) at least one sensor in these steps add insignificant extra-solution activity/pre-solution activity in the form of WURC activity to the abstract idea. The following is an example of a court decision demonstrating computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives sensor data, and transmits the data to a device over a network, for example the Internet.
Furthermore, the b) first application and c) second application generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The following represent an example that courts have identified as generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h)): Limiting the abstract idea data to applications, because limiting application of the abstract idea to computer applications is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, e.g. see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.
Lastly, the following State of the Art Publication demonstrates the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional elements: 6) “based on the input, display, via the display, the object”, e.g. see US 2008/0114689 to Psynik at Fig. 4A, WO 2004/110540 to Hebblewhite at Fig. 1, US 2016/0019351 to Ober at Fig. 11, Para. 0007, Claim 23, US 20150100327 to Kelley at Fig. 3A, 5. The prior art of record above indicates that graphical layouts displaying selectable data that is implemented “upon activation” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components, a general linking to a particular technological field, or insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1 and 21-39 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1, 21-22, 24-25, 27-28, 30-32, 34-35, and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2023/0037749 to Kadam et al. in view of U.S. 2016/0042431 to Douglass et al. and further in view of U.S. 2022/0249779 to Hayter et al.
As per claim 1, Kadam et al. teaches an electronic device (see: 170 of FIG. 1 where there is an electronic device) comprising:
--a display; (see: 172 of FIG. 1 where there is a display device)
--at least one sensor; (see: 130 of FIG. 1 where there is at least one sensor)
--memory storing one or more computer programs; (see: 114 of FIG. 1 where there is a memory) and
--one or more processors comprising processing circuitry, (see: 112 of FIG. 1 where there is such a processor)
--wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions (see: paragraph [0007] where there are such instructions) that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
--obtain, via the at least one sensor, sensing data, (see: paragraph [0027] where there is data obtained from sensors)
--determine, based on the sensing data, depression data of a user of the electronic device, (see: paragraph [0027] where a mood score (depression data) is being determined based on the sensor data)
--identify that the depression data is within a reference range, (see: paragraph [0030] where there is identification of the mood score (depression data) being within a reference range among various ranges)
--based on the depression data being within the reference range, generate a treatment recommendation (see: paragraphs [0028] and [0140] where based on the mood score range a intervention/recommendation is generated).
Kadam et al. may not further, specifically teach:
--generate a treatment recommendation in the form of:
1) --activate a setting for displaying an object indicating a first application recommended for relieving depression of the user on a home screen,
2) --after the setting for displaying the object on the home screen is activated, receive an input to switch the display from an inactive state to an active state, and
3) --based on the input, display, via the display, the object indicating the first application on the home screen, according to the activated setting.
Douglass et al. teaches:
--generate a treatment recommendation in the form of:
1) --activate a setting for displaying an object indicating a first application recommended for relieving depression of the user on a home screen, (see: 106 of FIG. 1 where there is activation of a setting for displaying applications which can be used to address a medical condition of a patient. The filtering here allows for displaying the recommended application on a home screen. The medical condition being that of depression was already taught in the base reference) and
3) --display, via the display, the object indicating the first application on the home screen, according to the activated setting (see: 108 of FIG. 1 where there is displaying of the application list on the home screen according to the activated setting (the filtering in 106)).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 1) activate a setting for displaying an object indicating a first application recommended for relieving depression of the user on a home screen and 3) display, via the display, the object indicating the first application on the home screen, according to the activated setting as taught by Douglass et al. in the device as taught by Kadam et al. with the motivation(s) of improving resource utilization and care coordination (see: paragraph [0012] of Douglass et al.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the generation of a treatment recommendation as taught by Douglass et al. for the generation of a treatment recommendation as disclosed by Kadam et al. since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Kadam et al. already teaches of generating a recommendation thus one can substitute how the recommendation is being generated to obtain predictable results of generating a recommendation. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Hayter et al. teaches:
--generate a treatment recommendation in the form of:
2) --after the setting for displaying the object on the home screen is activated, receive an input to switch the display from an inactive state to an active state, (see: paragraphs [0437] and [0487] where there is a notification which is being generated and displayed upon activation of the display. The notification can be seen in the banner) and
3) --based on the input, display, via the display, the object indicating the first application on the home screen (see: paragraphs [0437] and [0487] where there is displaying of the notification in the notification banner area).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 2) after the setting for displaying the object on the home screen is activated, receive an input to switch the display from an inactive state to an active state and 3) based on the input, display, via the display, the object indicating the first application on the home screen as taught by Hayter et al. in the device as taught by Kadam et al. and Douglass et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of alerting the user of information (see: paragraph [0437] of Hayter et al.).
As per claim 21, Kadam et al., Douglass et al., and Hayter et al. in combination teaches the device of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Douglass et al. further teaches wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
--receive an input on the object, (see: paragraph [0061] where there is reception of input/a selection on the icon in the list) and
--in response to the input on the object, execute the first application for relieving the depression of the user (see: paragraph [0061] where in response to the selection the application is opened. The application here is for relieving a health condition of the user where the condition being depression was taught in the Kadam et al. reference).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 22, Kadam et al., Douglass et al., and Hayter et al. in combination teaches the device of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Hayter et al. further teaches: wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
--after the object is displayed on the home screen, identify that the depression data is maintained within the reference range, (see: paragraph [0487] where the alert stays active until the alert is addressed. The alert being related to health data was taught in claim 1 in Douglass et al. There is an identification here is the range is maintained and then the alert stays active) and
--based on identifying that the depression data is maintained within the reference range, maintain the display of the object on the home screen (see: paragraph [0487] where the alert stays active until the alert is addressed. The alert being related to health data was taught in claim 1 in Douglass et al. There is an identification here is the range is maintained and then the alert stays active).
As per claim 24, Kadam et al., Douglass et al., and Hayter et al. in combination teaches the device of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Kadam et al. further teaches wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
--while the object indicating the first application is displayed on the home screen, receive an input to display an application list screen including a plurality of executable objects related to a plurality of applications stored in the memory, and
--in response to the input to display the application list screen, display the application list screen including the plurality of executable objects including a first executable object for the first application, wherein a first executable object displayed on the application list screen is visually highlighted relative to remaining executable objects among the plurality of executable objects.
As per claim 25, Kadam et al., Douglass et al., and Hayter et al. in combination teaches the device of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Kadam et al. further teaches: wherein the sensing data includes physical data and psychological data (see: paragraphs [0036] and [0042] where there is physiological data and physical data of position data).
As per claim 27, Kadam et al., Douglass et al., and Hayter et al. in combination teaches the device of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Kadam et al. further teaches wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
--in response to the input, before displaying the home screen, display a guidance screen indicating that the object indicating the first application is to be displayed on the home screen (see: paragraph [0061] where there is a guidance page after the selection of additional information about the application which is displayed).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 28, Kadam et al., Douglass et al., and Hayter et al. in combination teaches the device of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Hayter et al. further teaches:
--wherein the home screen includes an indicator for indicating a time during which the object is displayed on the home screen (see: paragraph [0437] where notifications are being displayed in a notification banner. The banner displays time as well).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 30, claim 30 is similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
As per claim 31, claim 31 is similar to claim 21 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
As per claim 32, claim 32 is similar to claim 22 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
As per claim 34, claim 34 is similar to claim 24 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
As per claim 35, claim 35 is similar to claim 25 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
As per claim 37, claim 37 is similar to claim 27 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
As per claim 38, claim 38 is similar to claim 28 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
As per claim 39, claim 39 is similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2023/0037749 to Kadam et al. in view of U.S. 2016/0042431 to Douglass et al. further in view of U.S. 2022/0249779 to Hayter et al. as applied to claim 28, and further in view of U.S. 2015/0262085 to Mader et al.
As per claim 29, Kadam et al., Douglass et al., and Hayter et al. in combination teaches the device of claim 28, see discussion of claim 28. The combination may not further, specifically teach:
--wherein a color of the indicator is changed based on the time during which the object is displayed on the home screen.
Mader et al. teaches:
--wherein a color of the indicator is changed based on the time during which the object is displayed on the home screen (see: paragraph [0029] where there is such a color change based on the duration of time the notification is up).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a color of the indicator is changed based on the time during which the object is displayed on the home screen as taught by Mader et al. in the device of Kadam et al., Douglass et al., and Hayter et al. in combination since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Kadam et al., Douglass et al., and Hayter et al. teaches of using a notification and adding a color changing aspect to this notification would maintain the same functionality of the combination of Kadam et al., Douglass et al., and Hayter et al. of notifying the user, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
No Art Rejections
Claims 23, 26, 33, and 36 have not been given art rejections based on the combination of references which could be used to reject these claims being unreasonable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights