Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, and 16 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/27/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 13, that claim 1 explicitly recites an improvement in functioning of a computer or technical field by determining whether the processing system has enough processor and memory resources to implement image recognition techniques to verify the identity of the user and, based on the determination offloading the verification to a third-party server so as to improve the functioning of the processing system.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as approving lessees to join a rental community. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. The additional elements (computer elements, third party servers, software application, etc) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, 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 do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
With respect to the arguments about Des Jardins and improvements to a computer, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Here, the offloading of verification to a third party based on computer resources does not provide an improvement to a technology or technical field and is utilizing generic computer components in their field of use. Therefore the claims still recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues, on page 13, that prior art should be cited against such claim feature when additional elements are found to be at a “high level of generality”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B. The additional elements have been categorized as generally linking/ field of use. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/27/2026, with respect to the art rejection have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 15-16, that although the cited portions of Qui describe/suggest authentication of identity by comparing a captured facial image with a facial image sample, Qui and Sher does not teach the amended limitations of the independent claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended limitations are considered moot in light of the updated rejection. The claims are rejected in view of Qui and Sher and Biessman.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1-6 is directed to a system with multiple components, and therefore is a machine.
Claims 7-12 are directed to non-transitory computer readable media and therefore is considered an article of manufacture.
Claims 13-20 are directed to a series of steps, and therefore is a process.
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
obtaining, …, first lease application information from … associated with a user;
determining that the first lease application information includes a first captured facial image of the user;
determining processing resources and memory resources associated … resulting in a determination;
verifying an identity of the user utilizing image recognition techniques based on the first captured facial image resulting in a first identity verification, wherein the verifying of the identity of the user comprises, based on the determination:
providing the first captured facial image to …, wherein the … verifies the identity of the user utilizing the image recognition techniques resulting in the first identity verification;
receiving the first identity verification …;
based on the first identity verification, transmitting a first portion of the first lease application information to a first third party server, wherein the first third party server processes the first portion of the first lease application information for application approval;
receiving the application approval from …;
determining a group of rental communities that the user is approved to lease based on the first lease application information and the application approval; and
transmitting the group of rental communities to the first communication device, wherein the … presents the group of rental communities … .
The limitation of Claim 7 recites:
obtaining, …, first lease application information from … associated with a user;
determining that the first lease application information includes a first captured facial image of the user;
determining processing resources and memory resources associated … resulting in a determination;
verifying an identity of the user utilizing image recognition techniques based on the first captured facial image resulting in a first identity verification, wherein the verifying of the identity of the user comprises, based on the determination:
providing the first captured facial image …., wherein the … verifies the identity of the user utilizing the image recognition techniques resulting in the first identity verification;
receiving the first identity verification ….;
based on the first identity verification, transmitting a first portion of the first lease application information to a first third party server, wherein the first third party server processes the first portion of the first lease application information for application approval;
receiving the application approval from the …;
determining a group of rental communities that the user is approved to lease based on the first lease application information and the application approval; and
transmitting the group of rental communities to the first communication device, wherein the first communication device presents the group of rental communities … .
The limitation of Claim 13 recites:
A method, comprising:
obtaining, …, …, first lease application information from a first communication device associated with a user;
determining, …, that the first lease application information includes a first captured facial image of the user;
determining, …, processing resources and memory resources associated … resulting in a determination;
verifying, …, an identity of the user utilizing image recognition techniques based on the first captured facial image resulting in a first identity verification, wherein the verifying of the identity of the user comprises, based on the determination:
providing, …, the first captured facial image to … wherein the verification third party server verifies the identity of the user utilizing the image recognition techniques resulting in the first identity verification;
receiving, by the processing system, the first identity verification from …;
based on the first identity verification, transmitting, …, a first portion of the first lease application information to …, wherein the … processes the first portion of the first lease application information for application approval;
receiving, …, the application approval from …;
determining, …, a group of rental communities that the user is approved to lease based on the first lease application information and the application approval; and
transmitting, …, the group of rental communities to …, wherein the … presents the group of rental communities … .
The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as approving lessees to join a rental community. The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1:
A device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
communication network
first communication device
first third party server
verification third party server
mapping software application
Claim 7:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
communication network
first communication device
first third party server
verification third party server
mapping software application
Claim 13
Processing system including a processor
communication network
first communication device
first third party server
verification third party server
mapping software application
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, 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 do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-12 and 14-20 further narrow the same abstract ideas recited in Claims 1 and 7 and 13, respectively. Therefore, claims 2-6 and 8-12 and 14-20 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 2:
Blockchain
Claim 3:
Non-fungible token (NFT)
Claim 4:
A public database
Claim 5:
Second communication device
Claim 6:
Third communication device
Claim 8:
Blockchain
Claim 9:
Non-fungible token (NFT)
Claim 10:
A public database
Claim 11:
Second communication device
Claim 12:
Third communication device
Claim 14:
Blockchain
Claim 15:
Non-fungible token (NFT)
Claim 16:
A public database
Claim 17:
Second communication device
Claim 18:
Third communication device
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, 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 do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
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.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qui (US20200034919A1) and in further view of Sher (US20180322597A1) and in further view of Biessman (US9892133B1)
Claim 1: Qui teaches A device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and (Qui, Par. 0026: processor)
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: (Qui, Par. 0026)
obtaining, over a communication network, first lease application information from a first communication device associated with a user; (Qui, par. 0034 and 0077)
Qui, in par. 0034, teaches a rental request initiated by a target user for a target service is received.
Qui, in Par. 0077, teaches terminal device used by lessee
determining that the first lease application information includes a first captured facial image of the user; (Qui, Par. 0077)
Qui, Par. 0077, teaches In this case, after receiving the rental request, the service management subsystem may send, to the lessor client software, a prompt message for collecting a facial image.
verifying an identity of the user utilizing image recognition techniques based on the first captured facial image resulting in a first identity verification; (Qui, Par. 0077)
Qui, Par. 0077, teaches After receiving the facial image, the service management subsystem may further upload the facial image onto the identity authentication subsystem, and the identity authentication subsystem compares the facial image with a facial image sample that is reserved in the system and that is bound to account information of the lessee
transmitting a first portion of the first lease application information to a first third party server, wherein the first third party server processes the first portion of the first lease application information for application approval; (Qui, Par. 0077; Par. 0069)
Qui, Par. 0077, teaches After receiving the facial image, the service management subsystem may further upload the facial image onto the identity authentication subsystem, and the identity authentication subsystem compares the facial image with a facial image sample that is reserved in the system and that is bound to account information of the lessee
Qui, Par. 0069, teaches he identity authentication subsystem may be not only subsystems integrated into a system architecture of the house rental system but also third-party subsystems interconnected with the service management subsystem. In other words, in actual applications, the house rental system may be interconnected with third-party systems to complete an identity authentication service.
receiving the application approval from the first third party server; (Qui, Par. 0077 and 0069)
Qui, par. 0077 teaches, If the facial image matches the facial image sample, it indicates that the rental request is a rental request initiated by the lessee, and in this case, the identity authentication of the lessee succeeds.
Qui, Par. 0069, third party server.
While Qui teaches the approval of an application based on the facial image recognitions as show above, it does not teach but Sher teaches:
determining a group of rental communities that the user is approved to lease based on the first lease application information and the application approval; and (Sher, Par. 0160-0161: renter community)
transmitting the group of rental communities to the first communication device, wherein the first communication device presents the group of rental communities utilizing a mapping software application. (Sher, Par. 0161-162; 0126)
Sher, Par. 0161, teaches renter community aspect may promote documentation and transparency. To avoid potential argument, confusion, and lack of transparency, a landlord and renter can interact on the renter community, may have recorded communication, aspect and other aspects of the platform before, during, and after they sign the lease. This documentation and transparency feature additionally promotes continuity of communication and transparency for future reference. A renter and/or tenant may upload pictures of the unit for the community to view or compare against pictures of the unit provided by the landlord. An assembly of renter pictures may be combined using software to create a 3D or virtual reality experience, for example using photogrammetry, advantageously avoiding the need to hire a dedicated 3D or VR professional to digitize the apartment for validating the accuracy of the information provided by the renter and/or the landlord.
Sher, Par. 0162, teaches The renter community may provide a social media aspect of the tenant/renter community connecting renters via a tenant/renter only social network.
Sher, Par. 0126, teaches The platform may provide a unique polygon map and data clustering that allows renters to search for rental opportunities inside or outside of 500-foot bubble around property, schools, daycares, or park. This advantageous feature may provide renters and landlords tools to consider these regulatory restrictions, a feature that is not known to exist in prior platforms. The search map of this disclosure and filter may assist sex offenders and people who want to avoid sex offender friendly zones find a place to live.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lease approval system of Qui to include Renal communities and a mapping software application, as taught by Sher, because renters currently don't have an option to join an online “renter only” community where they can engage other renters and tenants in a social media setting. Additionally, there are no known renter-member platforms where renters can engage in commerce with other renter members and/or third parties to buy, sell, and trade goods and/or services. There are no known platforms to convert rental to sales using automation follow-up tasks and cultivate relationships and use rental experience to substantially automatically pre-qualify, qualify, approve, and underwrite renters for mortgage financing. Furthermore, renters currently do not have an option to join an online “renter only” community where they can engage other renters and tenants in a social media setting. Additionally, there are no known renter-member platforms where renters can engage in commerce with other renter members and/or third parties to buy, sell, trade goods and/or services, currencies, and one or more financial instruments. (Sher, par. 0010)
While Qui teaches the facial recognition, Qui and Sher do not teach but Biessman teaches the determination of resources and utilizing a third-party server for image recognition.
Biessman, col. 10 Lines 58-67, teach the attribute verification system 104 may be provided as a service. A third party could provide an image to the attribute verification system 104 and receive a list of attributes using any of the processes described above. The third party may use the list of attributes for any number of purposes. For example, the third party may include the attributes in an article that reviews the item in the image. As another example, the third party may use the service to identify an item and the item's features in an otherwise unlabeled image. (i.e. third party server)
Biessman, in Col. 12 Lines 13-51, teaches The classifier training module 150, the feature extractor module 152, and/or the classifier module 154 can operate in parallel and for multiple users at the same time. For example, the verification of attributes listed in an item description may be requested from unique user devices 102 for different listings and the components of the attribute verification system 104 can verify the listed attributes simultaneously or nearly simultaneously for the unique user devices 102 in “real-time,” where “real-time” may be based on the perspective of the user. The generation and verification of attributes may be considered to occur in real time if, for example, the delay is sufficiently short (e.g., less than a few seconds) such that the user typically would not notice a processing delay. Real-time may also be based on the following: the attribute verification system 104 can verify listed attributes for a first user at the same time or at nearly the same time (e.g., within a couple seconds) as a verification of listed attributes is performed for a second user; the attribute verification system 104 can verify listed attributes simultaneously or nearly simultaneously as instantaneously as possible, limited by processing resources, available memory, network bandwidth conditions, and/or the like; the attribute verification system 104 can verify listed attributes simultaneously or nearly simultaneously based on a time it takes the hardware components of the attribute verification system 104 to process data; the attribute verification system 104 can verify listed attributes simultaneously or nearly simultaneously immediately as data is received (instead of storing, buffering, caching, or persisting data as it is received and processing the data later on); the attribute verification system 104 can verify listed attributes simultaneously or nearly simultaneously by transforming data without intentional delay, given the processing limitations of the attribute verification system 104 and other systems, like the user devices 102, and the time required to accurately receive and/or transmit the data; the attribute verification system 104 can verify listed attributes simultaneously or nearly simultaneously by processing or transforming data fast enough to keep up with an input data stream; etc. (i.e. determination of resources)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the facial recognition system of Qui to include a third-party server and determination of computing resources, as taught by Biessman, in order to the attribute verification system 104 can verify listed attributes simultaneously or nearly simultaneously by transforming data without intentional delay. (Biessman, Col. 12 lines 35-51).
Claim 2: Qui and Sher and Biessman teach The device of claim 1, Qui teaches wherein the operations comprise storing the first identity verification on a blockchain for security purposes. (Qui, Par. 0066: stored in the blockchain for evidence)
Claim 3: Qui and Sher and Biessman teach The device of claim 1, Sher teaches wherein the operations comprise associating a non-fungible token (NFT) with the first identity verification. (Sher, Par. 0135 and 0263: renter tokens stored on the blockchain i.e. NFT)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blockchain lesee system of Qui to further include tokens for renters approval/authorizations on the blockchain , as taught by Sher, in order to provide the renter with control over their access (Sher, Par. 0263)
Claim 4: Qui and Sher and Biessman teach The device of claim 1, wherein the verification third party server accesses a stored facial image of the user from a public database to verify the identity of the user. (Biessman, Col. 12 lines 52-61: catalog database)
See above rationale to combine.
Claim 5: Qui and Sher and Biessman teach The device of claim 1, wherein the operations comprise:
identifying a guarantor associated with the user based on the first lease application information;
providing, over the communication network, a link to provide second lease application information to a second communication device associated with the guarantor;
obtaining, over the communication network, the second lease application information from the second communication device associated with the guarantor;
determining that the second lease application information includes a second captured facial image of the guarantor;
verifying an identity of the guarantor utilizing image recognition techniques based on the second captured facial image resulting in a second identity verification; and
transmitting a first portion of the second lease application information to the first third party server, wherein the first third party server processes the first portion of the second lease application information for the application approval.
As mentioned in the claim 1 rejection, Qui teaches the facial image recognition process of approval. Claim 5 is similar to the approval process of claim 1. However, it does not teach but Sher, par. 0065, teaches a guarantor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the approval system for lessees/renters of Qui to include guarantors, as taught by Sher, because a guarantor is one that guarantees the transactional relationship. (Sher, Par. 0065)
Claim 6: Qui and Sher and Biessman teach The device of claim 1 Sher teaches, wherein the operations comprise:
identifying a co-tenant associated with the user based on the first lease application information;
providing, over the communication network, a link to provide third lease application information to a third communication device associated with the co-tenant;
obtaining, over the communication network, the third lease application information from the third communication device associated with the co-tenant;
determining that the third lease application information includes a third captured facial image of the co-tenant;
verifying an identity of the guarantor utilizing image recognition techniques based on the third captured facial image resulting in a third identity verification; and
transmitting a first portion of the third lease application information to the first third party server, wherein the first third party server processes the first portion of the third lease application information for the application approval.
As mentioned in the claim 1 rejection, Qui teaches the facial image recognition process of approval. Claim 6 is similar to the approval process of claim 1. However, it does not teach but Sher, par. 0065, teaches a co-tenant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the approval system for lessees/renters of Qui to include co-tenants, as taught by Sher, because a co-tenant is a person affiliated with the tenant also in a rental agreement with the landlord for a unit. (Sher, Par. 0065)
Claims 7-12
Claim 7-12 are directed to a non-transitory media. Claims 7-12 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1-6 which are directed towards a system. Claims 7-12 therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1-6, respectively. Furthermore, claim 7 recites non-transitory machine-readable medium which is taught by Qui in par. 0026
Claims 13-18
Claim 13-18 are directed to a method. Claims 13-18 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1-6 which are directed towards a system. Claims 13-18 therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1-6, respectively.
Claim 19: Qui and Sher and Biessman teach The method of claim 13, Sher teaches comprising:
screening, by the processing system, the user for the lease application process, wherein the screening comprises:
receiving, by the processing system, a credit history of the user; (Sher, Par. 0079)
receiving, by the processing system, a criminal history of the user; (Sher, Par. 0079)
receiving, by the processing system, an eviction history of the user; and (Sher, Par. 0079)
receiving, by the processing system, income verification. (Sher, Par. 0079)
See above rationale to combine.
Claim 20: Qui and Sher and Biessman teach The method of claim 19, comprising:
calculating, by the processing system, a score associated with the user willingness to pay based on the credit history, the criminal history, the eviction history, and the income verification; (Sher, Par. 0079: score; Par. 0085; payment score)
receiving, by the processing system, confirmation of unit for a selected property from the communication device of the user; (Sher, Par. 0267: selection)
receiving, by the processing system, application submission from the communication device of the user; (Qui, par. 0092: application and confirmation)
generating, by the processing system, a lease based on the application submission; and (Qui, par. 0092: application and confirmation)
facilitating, by the processing system, execution of the lease between the user and personnel associated with the selected property. (Qui, par. 0092: application and confirmation)
See above rationale to combine.
Conclusion
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 ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at 571-270-3923. 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.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights