DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 19 August 2026.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 12, and 16-20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 recite allowable subject matter, and the claims would be allowable if the claims were re-written or amended to overcome the 101 rejection indicated in the Office Action below.
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).
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-11 are directed to a method, claims 12-19 are directed to a system, and claim 20 is directed to a product of manufacture (non-transitory computer readable media).
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of providing a sublist of items to display for a shopper. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
accessing data comprising a plurality of order requests, wherein each order request of a centralized list of order requests comprises a plurality of data objects, each data object being indicative of an item;
creating, based on a first order request of the centralized list of order requests and merchant location data, a first shopping list comprising: (i) the plurality of data objects for items to be retrieved for the first order request and (ii) characteristic data for each respective item;
storing the first shopping list and a plurality of other additional shopping lists data, the shopping list data accessible to a plurality of shoppers;
accessing data indicative of selection of the first shopping list by a first shopper of the plurality of shoppers;
automatically updating, based on accessing the data indicative of the selection of the first shopping list, the shipping list data to include order status data;
determining that a number of active shoppers is greater than a plurality of order requests based on evaluating data indicative of a number of active shoppers and the plurality of order requests;
based on determining that the number of active shoppers is greater than the plurality of order requests, automatically updating the order status data in the shopping list to designate the first shopping list as eligible for splitting;
based on designating the first shopping list as eligible for splitting, accessing data indicative of selection of the first shopping list by a second shopper of the plurality of shoppers;
based on accessing data indicative of selection of the first shopping list by the first and the second shoppers, inputting, (i) features associated with the first shopper, (ii) features associated with the second shopper, and (iii) the characteristic data of each respective item of a plurality of items;
using, a first sublist of items for the first shopper and a second sublist of items for the second shopper to determine a distribution of data objects across the first shopper and the second shopper; and
transmitting data comprising instructions, to provide the first sublist of items for display.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of providing a subset of items for display for a shopper, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claim specifically recites steps involved with providing a shopper with a sublist of items for display, where the steps include activities of accessing data of a plurality of order requests where the orders include items, based on the requests, creating a shopping list that includes data objects for items and characteristic data for each item, storing the shopping lists that is accessible by a plurality of shoppers, updating the shopping list data to include order status of the shopping list, accessing data indicative of selection of the first shopping list by a shopper, determining that a number of active shoppers is greater than the plurality of order requests and resulting in designating the shopping list as eligible for splitting, based on the splitting designation accessing data indicative of selection of the first shopping list by a second shopper, and transmitting the first sublist of items for display to the shopper, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements: a centralized data structure, computing, computed, data store, computing devices, a first computing device, computing devices, computing devices, network traffic, computing devices, computing devices, data store, a second computing device, computing devices, the first computing device and the second computing device, inputting into a machine-learned model, computing, using the machine-learned model, the second computing device, first computing device and the second computing device, first computing device, cause an interactive user interface of the first computer device, and via the interactive user interface of the first computing device.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., providing a subset of items to display for a shopper) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). While the claims now recite using a machine-learned model, the recitations are results based in nature and do not include details as to how the machine-learned model is actually functioning beyond known functions. Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that the claim recites the step transmitting data comprising instructions, that, when executed by the first computing device, cause an interactive user interface of the first computing device to provide the first sublist of items for display via the interactive user interface of the first computing device, which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity can be understood as activities that are incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In this case, the activity of transmitting data to the first computing device is merely nominal or tangential additions to the primary process of abstract idea, such as providing a subset of items to display for a shopper.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the 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). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements of a centralized data structure, computing, computed, data store, computing devices, a first computing device, computing devices, computing devices, network traffic, computing devices, computing devices, data store, a second computing device, computing devices, the first computing device and the second computing device, inputting into a machine-learned model, computing, using the machine-learned model, the second computing device, first computing device and the second computing device, first computing device, cause an interactive user interface of the first computer device, and via the interactive user interface of the first computing device. recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Further, the step transmitting data comprising instructions, that, when executed by the first computing device, cause an interactive user interface of the first computing device to provide the first sublist of items for display via the interactive user interface of the first computing device, does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception because they are merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry of data management and processing. The courts have recognized the computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a generic manner or as insignificantly extra-solution activity. Receiving or transmitting data over a network (e.g., using the Internet to gather data) and storing and retrieving information in memory are recognized computer functions that are considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). This is similar to the steps and additional elements that are recited in the claims. For example, the step of transmitting data that includes a first subset of items for display via the interface of the computing device, would be the same as the activity of transmitting and retrieving data over a network in this case. For examples of court cases, see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claims 12 and 20 are similar in nature to representative claim 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 1. It is noted that in independent claim 12 includes the additional elements of one or more processors and one or more non-transitory, computer readable media storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations, and independent claim 20 includes the additional element of one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors to perform operations. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the additional elements recited in claims 12 and 20, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claims 12 and 20 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claims 12 and 20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 12 and 20, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claims 12 and 20 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19, depending from claims 1 and 12 respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the representative independent claim 1 nor independent claims 12 and 20. The claims of 2-11 and 13-19 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims include the additional elements of the interactive user interface of the second computing device (claims 2, 3, & 6). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the interactive user interface of the second computing device, as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 2-3 and 6 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 2-3 and 6, considered individually and in combination with other claimed features, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 4-5, 7-11, and 13-19 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 are ineligible.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
Prior Art Considerations:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is concluded that the totality of evidence in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
Regarding the independent claims, the features are as follows:
determining that a number of active shopper computing devices is greater than a plurality of order requests based on evaluating network traffic data indicative of a number of active shopper computing devices and the plurality of order requests,
based on determining that the number of active shopper computing devices is greater than the plurality of order requests, automatically updating the order status data in the shopping list data store to designate the first shopping list as eligible for splitting,
based on designating the first shopping list as eligible for splitting, accessing data indicative of selection of the first shopping list by a second computing device of the plurality of shopper computing devices,
based on accessing data indicative of selection of the first shopping list by the first computing device and the second computing device, inputting into a machine-learned model, and
computing, using the machine-learned model, a first sublist of items for the first computing device and a second sublist of items for the second computing device to determine a distribution of data objects across the first computing device and the second computing device
The most apposite prior art of record includes Brosnan, S., et al. (PGP No. US 2022/0405828 A1), in view of Macaisa, M., et al. (PGP No. US 2013/0117151 A1), Schack, S., et al. (Patent No. US 11,783,400 B1), and Deshpande, A., et al. (PGP No. US 2015/0120514 A1), to teach a method for shared shopping lists for shoppers.
The reference of Brosnan describes a method for sharing shopping lists, utilizing a shared shopping list database, where shopping lists are available that include products to be purchased (Brosnan, paragraph [0027]). The data of each list is available and includes information of where each product is located, such as a retail location, physical attributes, product details, and category information for each product (Brosnan, paragraph [0028]). A plurality of shoppers have access to the shared shopping lists via mobile applications and visible on mobile devices, where the shopper can see what products have been assigned to them regarding the shared shopping list, designating sub-lists to each shopper during a shopping session (Brosnan, paragraphs [0015] and [0021]). The method of Brosnan describes that the app provides each shopper with dynamic shopping information upon arriving at the retail location, where the system is able to determine that the shopper is present and is participating in the collaborative shopping session based on an affirmative response from the shopper (Brosnan, paragraph [0021]). The reference describes that the plurality of shoppers collaborate on a shared shopping list, where each of the shoppers have their own separate device, and where the system recognizes each device taking part in the shopping (Brosnan, see: paragraph [0021] and FIG. 5). Brosnan further describes that the system can generate scores for each shopper, which is used to determine what respective sub-list of items to shop for on the shared list (Brosnan, see: paragraphs [0024]-[0025] and [0030]). The reference describes that each sub-list of items on the shared list is tailored based on the score for the shopper, transmitted to the shopper’s device, which is done for each shopper in the collaborative shopping session (Brosnan, paragraphs [0020] and [0030], and FIGS. 3 & 5). Although Brosnan does describe the collaborative shopping, where shared shopping lists are divided into sub-lists for each shopper, Brosnan does not specifically describe interactive user interfaces via the computing devices, and Brosnan does not describe using machine learning models to input the accessed data of the selection of the shopping lists, and does not disclose that the splitting up the lists is done based on determining a number of active shoppers that are greater in number than the plurality of order request, determined by network traffic. Brosnan does not disclose nor describe the allowable features indicated above.
The reference of Macaisa describes an interactive user interface with user interface elements to permit a user to interact with while using an e-commerce platform, where the platform is used to display a number of items that are selected during an item registration or co-registration process, for selecting items in a gift registry, where the interface can display the specific number of items already selected and shopped for by another shopper (Macaisa, see: paragraphs [0074] and [0091]). Although Macaisa does discuss a collaborative shopping situation, where a number of people can shop for an aggregated list of items that are added to a gift registry, the reference is silent to dividing up the lists based on a number of active shoppers with computing devices that is greater than a plurality of order requests. And although Macaisa does mention machine learning models, the models are to predict product registration items, unlike the allowable features as indicated above, and therefore Macaisa does not teach the allowable features indicated.
The reference of Schack describes a method for an interface that generates augmented reality elements to recommend products that are stored in an inventory warehouse, where the warehouse is detected within a display area of a client device, and can recommend alternative replacement items, such as a different brant, if an item on a list is out of stock (Schack, see: Col. 21, ln. 66-67, and Col. 22, ln. 1-2). The system of Schack is able to update the augmented reality element if the item needed in the list is unavailable or if an item has already been collected, where the update also includes a note that indicates that the item is a replacement item instead of the original item of the list (Schack, Col. 23, ln. 13-36). Schack also describes that a machine-learned model is used in the reference to determine availability for such items on a list, such as available in a warehouse inventory (Schack, see: Col. 9, ln. 45-55), however, the reference does not disclose that the machine-learned model is used to compute a first sublist of items of a second sublist of items, nor to determine a distribution of data across the computing devices. Therefore, Schack does not teach nor suggest any of the allowable features as indicated above.
Next, the reference of Deshpande describes a system for determining when a picker of items in a shopping environment will arrive to the retail location to shop for items indicated on a shopping list (Deshpande, paragraph [0027]). Deshpande also describes that multiple orders to be picked up at a retail location can be merged for collection into separate lists (Deshpande, see: paragraph [0024]), but the reference does not mention splitting the lists based on a number of active shoppers with user devices that is greater than a plurality of order request based on network traffic, and does not describe any type of machine-learning that would be involved in computing sublists for each user computing device. Deshpande does not teach or suggest any of the allowable features indicated above.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. Moreover, the combination of features of independent claims, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias and resulting in an inappropriate combination.
It is hereby asserted by the Examiner, that in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims recite allowable subject matter, as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner’s Comment
The Examiner notes that the non-patent literature (NPL) document, titled Split Case Picking: Like a Trip to the Grocery Store, published in Cisco-Eagle website (2005), documented on PTO-892 form as reference U, and hereinafter referred to as ‘Split Case’, describes what a local grocery store can teach about splitting case orders for picking. The reference describes methods that are not as efficient in picking, including the basic order picking method, batching picking systems, pick and pass systems, and wave picking. Although the reference ‘Split Case’ describes such features, the reference does not disclose or teach the allowable features that are stated above, and does not remedy the deficiencies of the noted prior art.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim objections regarding claim 19, and in light of the Applicant’s amendment to the claim, the objection is withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 19 August 2026, have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 10 and 12 of the remarks stating that “the pending claims are patent eligible” and “Without conceding that the claims recite an abstract idea, Applicant respectfully submits that, as discussed in the interview, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application such that the claims are not ‘directed to’ an abstract idea,” and “claim 1 provides “an improvement to other technology or technical field.’” and “claim 1 address technical problems associated with ‘computation efficiency of the network computing systems as well as the distributed client devices connected thereto, by avoiding the duplication of data across the client devices, allowing for more efficient completion of computation tasks,” and further on page 13 of the remarks regarding the dependent claims and stating “Some or all of these claims may possess features that are independently patentable, regardless of the patentability of the independent claims,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of providing a sublist of items for a shopper. The abstract idea into this case falls into the enumerated sub-grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity, where the activities recited in the claims are specifically related to sales activities or behaviors. Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis, the amended claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements that are beyond the abstract idea, are still recited in a generic manner, merely being used to apply the abstract idea with generically recited computing components. Although the claims do recite the machine-learned model, the model is still recited at a high-level of generality, where the feature is not described with any type of specificity beyond what are already known functions of machine learning models. Further, the claims do not reflect any improvement to the technology itself, nor to a technical field. The MPEP (2106.05(a)) provides further guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, as indicated in 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(d)(1) of the MPEP, the claim itself “must reflect the disclosed improvement in the technology” and also “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, Applicant’s specification and claims, provide no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”. Id citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. Although the claims include computer technology such as a centralized data structure, computing, computed, data store, computing devices, a first computing device, computing devices, computing devices, network traffic, computing devices, computing devices, data store, a second computing device, computing devices, the first computing device and the second computing device, inputting into a machine-learned model, computing, using the machine-learned model, the second computing device, first computing device and the second computing device, first computing device, cause an interactive user interface of the first computer device, and via the interactive user interface of the first computing device, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving the existing technological process but are directed to improving the commercial task of providing the sublist of items to a shopper. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in improvements of providing a sublist of items to a shopper, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while still employing the same processor and computer components used in conventional systems to improve providing a sublist of items for a shopper, e.g. commercial process. As such, the claims do not recite specific technological improvements. It is also noted that the dependent claims, as addressed in the rejection above, do not indicate eligible subject matter, and are therefore rejected based on their dependencies from the independent claims, and thus are not eligible. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not reflect an improvement to the technology or technical field, and thus, maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 19 August 2026, have been fully considered. In light of the Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims, the claims now recite allowable subject matter as indicated above, and therefore the 103 rejection is withdrawn.
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 ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights