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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-20 have been examined.
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 claims recite a judicial exception which is not integrated into a practical application and the claims lack an inventive concept.
Step 1 is the first inquiry into eligibility analysis and asks whether the claims are directed to a statutory category. In this instance, the answer must be in the affirmative because they recite a method and a system.
Step 2A prong 1 is the next step in the eligibility analyses and asks whether the claimed invention recites a judicial exception. In this instance, the claims recite the following limitations which comprise the abstract idea:
receiving data for generating an evaluation system on a customer computing system, the evaluation system for evaluating heel stability of a first article of footwear;
receiving a customer-selected evaluation of the heel stability of the first article of footwear;
transmitting, to a manufacturer or third party computing system, data including the customer-selected evaluation of the heel stability of the first article of footwear, wherein the data is transmitted in a manner to allow the manufacturer or third party to associate the customer-selected evaluation of the heel stability of the first article of footwear:
with a customer, and with a first iteration of a customization cycle associated with the customer.
This is an abstract idea because it is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial or legal interactions such as marketing and sales activities and/or behaviors.
Step 2A prong 2 is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
a customer computing system
a manufacturer or third party computing system
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations of these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, claim 2-9 are directed to the abstract idea itself. In addition, even if these claims were determined not to be directed to the abstract idea, they do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
a customer computing system
a manufacturer or third party computing system
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11900432 in view of Wilkinson (US 2015/0242929). The prior patent and the present application are both directed to the concepts of evaluating an article of footwear, but the prior patent does not teach the step of: transmitting, from the customer computing system to a manufacturer or third party computing system, data including the customer-selected evaluation of the first structural characteristic of the first article of footwear, wherein the data is transmitted in a manner to allow the manufacturer or third party to associate the customer-selected evaluation of the first structural characteristic of the first article of footwear: (a) with a customer, and (b) with a first iteration of a customization cycle associated with the customer. However, Wilkinson teaches the transmission step (see Wilkinson ¶0070). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, the prior patent would continue to teach a system for customer evaluation of the footwear except that now that evaluation would be sent to a manufacture to produce a new article of footwear based on the evaluation. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11093989 in view of Wilkinson (US 2015/0242929). The prior patent and the present application are both directed to the concepts of evaluating an article of footwear, but the prior patent does not teach the step of: transmitting, from the customer computing system to a manufacturer or third party computing system, data including the customer-selected evaluation of the first structural characteristic of the first article of footwear, wherein the data is transmitted in a manner to allow the manufacturer or third party to associate the customer-selected evaluation of the first structural characteristic of the first article of footwear: (a) with a customer, and (b) with a first iteration of a customization cycle associated with the customer. However, Wilkinson teaches the transmission step (see Wilkinson ¶0070). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, the prior patent would continue to teach a system for customer evaluation of the footwear except that now that evaluation would be sent to a manufacture to produce a new article of footwear based on the evaluation. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12008617 in view of Wilkinson (US 2015/0242929). The prior patent and the present application are both directed to the concepts of evaluating an article of footwear, but the prior patent does not teach the step of: transmitting, from the customer computing system to a manufacturer or third party computing system, data including the customer-selected evaluation of the first structural characteristic of the first article of footwear, wherein the data is transmitted in a manner to allow the manufacturer or third party to associate the customer-selected evaluation of the first structural characteristic of the first article of footwear: (a) with a customer, and (b) with a first iteration of a customization cycle associated with the customer. However, Wilkinson teaches the transmission step (see Wilkinson ¶0070). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, the prior patent would continue to teach a system for customer evaluation of the footwear except that now that evaluation would be sent to a manufacture to produce a new article of footwear based on the evaluation. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/403,216 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed to the facilitating the manufacture of custom footwear based on a customer evaluation of footwear. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11288724 in view of Wilkinson (US 2015/0242929). The prior patent and the present application are both directed to the concepts of evaluating an article of footwear, but the prior patent does not teach the step of: transmitting, from the customer computing system to a manufacturer or third party computing system, data including the customer-selected evaluation of the first structural characteristic of the first article of footwear, wherein the data is transmitted in a manner to allow the manufacturer or third party to associate the customer-selected evaluation of the first structural characteristic of the first article of footwear: (a) with a customer, and (b) with a first iteration of a customization cycle associated with the customer. However, Wilkinson teaches the transmission step (see Wilkinson ¶0070). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, the prior patent would continue to teach a system for customer evaluation of the footwear except that now that evaluation would be sent to a manufacture to produce a new article of footwear based on the evaluation. This is a predictable result of the combination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkinson (US 2015/0242929) in view of Reference V (see PTO-892).
Referring to Claim 1, Wilkinson teaches a method for customizing an article of footwear, comprising:
receiving data for generating an evaluation system on a customer computing system, the evaluation system for evaluating a characteristic of a first article of footwear (see Wilkinson ¶0072 and Fig. 9-10);
receiving a customer-selected evaluation of the characteristic of the first article of footwear on the customer computing system (see Wilkinson ¶0072, a user clicks the heel and adjusts the cushioning slider);
transmitting, from the customer computing system to a manufacturer or third party computing system, data including the customer-selected evaluation of the characteristic of the first article of footwear, wherein the data is transmitted in a manner to allow the manufacturer or third party to associate the customer-selected evaluation of the characteristic of the first article of footwear: with a customer, and with a first iteration of a customization cycle associated with the customer (see Wilkinson ¶0071, the system may send information “related” to the feedback to the manufacturer for review and in order to produce an altered or new item; the feedback data itself in [0072] and Fig. 9-10 is data related to the feedback).
While Wilkinson teaches the characteristic may be cushioning, comfort, arch support, length, toebox width, and heel width, it does not specifically teach where it is heel stability. However, Reference V teaches that heel stability is a characteristic of shoes (see Reference V pages 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references and expand the characteristics that Wilkinson collected from a consumer to include heel stability since the results would be predictable. Specifically, Wilkinson would continue to collect an evaluation from a consumer on various characteristics of footwear except that now those characteristics would include heel stability. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Referring to Claim 2, the combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the customer computing system on which the evaluation system and the customer-selected evaluation are received is a mobile device (see Wilkinson Fig. 1).
Referring to Claim 3, the combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the customer-selected evaluation is received through an app running on a smartphone provided as the customer computing system (see Wilkinson Fig. 1 and ¶0040).
Referring to Claim 4, the combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the customer computing system on which the customer-selected evaluation is received is a smartphone, a personal computer, or a computer tablet (see Wilkinson Fig. 1 and ¶0040).
Referring to Claim 5, the combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation system provides a scroll bar through which the customer enters information relating to the customer-selected evaluation of the heel stability of the first article of footwear (see Wilkinson Fig. 9-10).
Referring to Claim 6, the combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation system provides a scroll bar having a first end and a second end, wherein one end corresponds to an evaluation that the first article of footwear of a first characteristic, and wherein the second end of the scroll bar corresponds to an evaluation that the first article of footwear of a second characteristic (see Wilkinson Fig. 9-10). Wilkinson does not teach wherein these characteristics are rolling inwardly and outwardly. However, Reference V teaches supination and pronation of a heel (see Reference V pages 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Wilkinson would continue to teach scroll bars that the user can adjust to provide their evaluation on various footwear characteristics, except that now one of the scrollbars would have a supination endpoint and pronation endpoint allowing the user to provide feedback on heel stability, according to the teachings of Reference V. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Referring to Claim 7, the combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation system provides a scroll bar having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of the scroll bar corresponds to an evaluation that the first article of footwear of a first characteristic, and wherein the second end of the scroll bar corresponds to an evaluation that the first article of footwear of a second characteristic (see Wilkinson Fig. 9-10). Wilkinson does not each wherein those characteristics are perfect stability and very unstable. However, Reference V teaches that characteristics of a shoe can comprise stabilized and un-stabilized (including a degree of instability). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references and expand the characteristics that Wilkinson collected from a consumer to include different levels of stability such as perfect stability and very unstable because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Wilkinson would continue to collect an evaluation from a consumer on various characteristics of footwear except that now those characteristics would include the degree of stability. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Referring to Claim 10, the combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the transmitting includes wireless transmission from the customer computing system over a wireless network (see Wilkinson ¶0102).
Referring to Claim 11, the combination teaches a system for customizing an article of footwear comprising:
a computing system configured to generate and display an evaluation system for evaluating a characteristic of a first article of footwear (see Wilkinson ¶0072 and Fig. 9-10);
an input system configured to receive input data including a customer-selected evaluation of the characteristic of the first article of footwear (see Wilkinson ¶0072, a user clicks the heel and adjusts the cushioning slider);
a transmission system configured to transmit the customer-selected evaluation of the characteristic of the first article of footwear to a manufacturer or third party, wherein the transmission system transmits the customer-selected evaluation of the heel stability of the first article of footwear in a manner to allow the manufacturer or third party to associate the customer-selected evaluation of the characteristic of the first article of footwear: with a customer, and with a first iteration of a customization cycle associated with the customer (see Wilkinson ¶0071, the system may send information “related” to the feedback to the manufacturer for review and in order to produce an altered or new item; the feedback data itself in [0072] and Fig. 9-10 is data related to the feedback).
While Wilkinson teaches the characteristic may be cushioning, comfort, arch support, length, toebox width, and heel width, it does not specifically teach where it is heel stability. However, Reference V teaches that heel stability is a characteristic of shoes (see Reference V pages 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references and expand the characteristics that Wilkinson collected from a consumer to include heel stability since the results would be predictable. Specifically, Wilkinson would continue to collect an evaluation from a consumer on various characteristics of footwear except that now those characteristics would include heel stability. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Referring to Claim 12, the combination teaches the system according to claim 11, wherein the computing system, the input system, and the transmission system comprise portions of a mobile device (see Wilkinson Fig. 1).
Referring to Claim 13, the combination teaches the system according to claim 11, wherein the computing system, the input system, and the transmission system comprise portions of a smartphone, a personal computer, or a computer tablet (see Wilkinson Fig. 1 and ¶0040).
Referring to Claim 14, the combination teaches the system according to claim 11, wherein the customer-selected evaluation is received through an app running on a smartphone (see Wilkinson Fig. 1 and ¶0040).
Referring to Claim 15, the combination teaches the system according to claim 11, wherein the evaluation system generated and displayed on the computing system includes a scroll bar through which the customer enters information relating to the customer-selected evaluation of the heel stability of the first article of footwear (see Wilkinson Fig. 9-10).
Referring to Claim 16, the combination teaches the system according to claim 11, wherein the evaluation system provides a scroll bar having a first end and a second end, wherein one end corresponds to an evaluation that the first article of footwear of a first characteristic, and wherein the second end of the scroll bar corresponds to an evaluation that the first article of footwear of a second characteristic (see Wilkinson Fig. 9-10). Wilkinson does not teach wherein these characteristics are rolling inwardly and outwardly. However, Reference V teaches supination and pronation of a heel (see Reference V pages 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Wilkinson would continue to teach scroll bars that the user can adjust to provide their evaluation on various footwear characteristics, except that now one of the scrollbars would have a supination endpoint and pronation endpoint allowing the user to provide feedback on heel stability, according to the teachings of Reference V. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Referring to Claim 17, the combination teaches the system according to claim 11, wherein the evaluation system provides a scroll bar having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of the scroll bar corresponds to an evaluation that the first article of footwear of a first characteristic, and wherein the second end of the scroll bar corresponds to an evaluation that the first article of footwear of a second characteristic (see Wilkinson Fig. 9-10). Wilkinson does not each wherein those characteristics are perfect stability and very unstable. However, Reference V teaches that characteristics of a shoe can comprise stabilized and un-stabilized (including a degree of instability). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references and expand the characteristics that Wilkinson collected from a consumer to include different levels of stability such as perfect stability and very unstable because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Wilkinson would continue to collect an evaluation from a consumer on various characteristics of footwear except that now those characteristics would include the degree of stability. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Referring to Claim 20, the combination teaches the system according to claim 11, wherein the transmission system comprises a wireless transmission system (see Wilkinson ¶0102).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkinson (US 2015/0242929) in view of Reference V (see PTO-892).
Referring to Claim 8, the combination teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
generating an evaluation system on the customer computing system for evaluating a characteristic of a second article of footwear in an iteration of the customization cycle (see Wilkinson ¶0072 and Fig. 9-10);
receiving a customer-selected evaluation of the characteristic of the second article of footwear on the customer computing system (see Wilkinson ¶0072, a user clicks the heel and adjusts the cushioning slider);
transmitting, from the customer computing system to the manufacturer or third party computing system, data including the customer-selected evaluation of the characteristic of the article of footwear, wherein the data is transmitted in a manner to allow the manufacturer or third party to associate the customer-selected evaluation of the characteristic of the second article of footwear: with the customer, and with the iteration of the customization cycle associated with the customer (see Wilkinson ¶0071, the system may send information “related” to the feedback to the manufacturer for review and in order to produce an altered or new item; the feedback data itself in [0072] and Fig. 9-10 is data related to the feedback).
Wilkinson teaches a first iteration, but not a second iteration. However, Bright teaches a second iteration (see Bright ¶0027, a consumer purchases a product which was recommended to them based on their fit prediction; ¶0020, the fit prediction uses machine learning to improve over time based on the consumer’s purchase history and feedback the consumer provides on items they purchased; ¶0028, the consumer provides feedback on an item they purchased, which can be a product recommended to them based on a fit prediction generated using purchase history of the consumer, which is a subsequent iteration; ¶0029, the feedback is used to improve the fit prediction for the consumer, and the cycle repeats in order to improve the fit prediction over time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because multiple iterations would lead to fit prediction that would “improve over time” leading to a reduced rate of returns, saving the merchant money on paying for return shipping (see Bright ¶¶0002,3). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, the prior art of Wilkinson would continue to teaches these steps for a first iteration except that now it would perform multiple subsequent iterations according to the teachings of Bright. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Referring to Claim 9, the combination teaches the method according to claim 8, further comprising:
generating an evaluation system on the customer computing system for evaluating heel stability of a third article of footwear in a third iteration of the customization cycle (see Wilkinson ¶0072 and Fig. 9-10);
receiving a customer-selected evaluation of the heel stability of the third article of footwear on the customer computing system (see Wilkinson ¶0072, a user clicks the heel and adjusts the cushioning slider);
transmitting, from the customer computing system to the manufacturer or third party computing system, data including the customer-selected evaluation of the heel stability of the third article of footwear, wherein the data is transmitted in a manner to allow the manufacturer or third party to associate the customer-selected evaluation of the heel stability of the third article of footwear: with the customer, and with the third iteration of the customization cycle associated with the customer (see Wilkinson ¶0071, the system may send information “related” to the feedback to the manufacturer for review and in order to produce an altered or new item; the feedback data itself in [0072] and Fig. 9-10 is data related to the feedback).
Referring to Claims 18-19, these claims are similar to claims 8-9 and therefore rejected under the same reasons and rationale.
Remarks
Additional prior art relevant to the claims but not relied upon includes:
Bright (US 8,762,292) teaches providing customers with personalized information about products.
Shum (US 2006/0129416) teaches the sale of shoes via subscription services.
Reference U (see PTO-892) teaches pronation and supination in footwear.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5278. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm M-T, 8-12pm W.
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, Jeff Smith can be reached at (571)272-6763. 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.
/MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688