DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on March 27, 2026.
Claims 2 and 4 were cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 18, and 20 were amended.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Examiner maintains the double patenting rejection in light of Applicant’s amendments because the amendments do not make Applicant’s claimed invention patentably distinct from the reference claims.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 response was improper because the claims do not recite an abstract idea or a commercial or legal interaction. Examiner disagrees. The claimed invention presents a financial product as an option for paying for a good or service when it is determined that the user has referenced the good or service through speech and is physically near the good or service. Placing the user and the good or service in the same location when the user speaks about the good or service is an example of a sales activity, and sales activities are abstract. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 response was improper because the claims integrate any such exception into a practical application by improving the functioning of computing systems that determine physical locations of computing devices. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention does not improve the functioning of computing systems that determine physical locations based on sound and location sensors because Applicant’s claimed invention merely used the computing systems as a tool to facilitate commercial activity. Applicant’s claimed invention did not overcome any technological obstacle or limitation in using the captured sound and location sensors. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 response was improper because the claims recite significantly more than any purported abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. The claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations merely link the abstract idea of offering a financial product as an option to purchase a good or service based on location data and sound recordings to a computer environment. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claims recite features that cannot be considered to be well-understood, routine or conventional. Examiner disagrees. Examiner’s 101 rejection does not require or rely on a finding that any recited claim features were well-understood, routine or conventional. Therefore, the issue of whether any claim features are well-understood, routine or conventional is moot. Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 14, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,094. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 2, 3, 14, and 16 of US Patent No. 11,978,094 teach or suggest claims 1, 18, and 20, respectively. See the following tables for a comparison of the claims:
App #18/656499 (claim 1)
US Pat. No. 11,978,094
Claim no.
capturing, by one or more processors, a first sound recording using a first sound sensor of a first device;
capturing, by one or more processors, a first sound recording using a first sound sensor of a first device;
1
generating, by the one or more processors, a first sound signature using the first sound recording;
identifying, by the one or more processors, a sound signature based on ambient sounds analyzed in the first sound recording captured by the first device of a user;
1
determining, by the one or more processors, that the first sound signature is indicative of a location characteristic associated with a physical location;
determining, by the one or more processors, a physical location of the first device of the user based at least in part on the sound signature being indicative of the physical location;
1
determining, by the one or more processors, the physical location of the first device based on data obtained from a location sensor of the first device and based on the first sound signature being indicative of the location characteristic associated with the physical location;
determining, by the one or more processors, a physical location of the first device of the user based at least in part on the sound signature being indicative of the physical location;
1
capturing, by the one or more processors, a second sound recording using the first sound sensor of the first device;
capturing, by the one or more processors, a second sound recording using a second sound sensor of a second device;
2
analyzing, by the one or more processors, the second sound recording to identify a biometric voice signature of a user and detecting a first phrase spoken by the user in the first sound recording;
analyzing, by the one or more processors, the first sound recording to identify a biometric voice signature of the user and detecting a first phrase spoken by the user in the first sound recording;
1
identifying, by the one or more processors, a good or service based at least in part on the first phrase spoken by the user in the first sound recording;
identifying, by the one or more processors, a good or service based at least in part on the first phrase spoken by the user in the first sound recording:
1
determining, based on data acquired by the first device, by the one or more processors, that the first device is near a source of the identified good or service; and
determining that the physical location corresponds with a source of the identified good or service; and
1
in response to determining that the physical location corresponds with the source of the identified good or service:
in response to determining that the physical location corresponds with the source of the identified good or service:
1
visually presenting, in a dashboard of an application running on the first device, on a display screen of the first device, a financial product as an option for paying for the identified good or service.
visually presenting, in a dashboard of an application running on the first device, the underwritten loan to the user on a display screen of the first device as an option for paying for the identified good or service.
1
App #18/656499 (claim 18)
US Pat. No. 11,978,094
Claim no.
a first device comprising:
A first device comprising:
14
a first sound sensor configured to detect ambient sounds;
a sound sensor configured to detect ambient sounds;
14
a location sensor configured to detect location data associated with the first device;
a location sensor configured to detect location data associated with the first device;
14
a network interface configured to communicate via a telecommunications network;
a network interface configured to communicate via a telecommunications network;
14
one or more user interfaces configured to present perceptible elements; and
one or more user interfaces configured to present perceptible elements; and
14
a processor configured to:
a processor configured to:
14
capture a first sound recording using a first sound sensor the first device;
capture a first sound recording using a first sound sensor the first device;
14
generate a first sound signature using the first sound recording based at least in part on the ambient sounds detected in the first sound recording;
identifying a sound signature based at least in part on the ambient sounds detected using the sound sensor;
14
determine that the first sound signature is indicative of a location characteristic regarding a physical location;
…based at least in part on the sound signature being indicative of the physical location;
14
determine the physical location of the first device [based on data obtained from the location sensor of the first device and] based on the first sound signature being indicative of the location characteristic regarding the physical location;
detect a physical location of the first device based at least in part on the sound signature being indicative of the physical location;
14
…based on data obtained from the location sensor of the first device and…
…wherein determining the physical location is further based at least in part on a sensor reading of a location sensor of the first device.
3
capture a second sound recording using the first sound sensor;
capturing…a second sound recording using a second sound sensor of a second device
2
analyze the second sound recording to identify a biometric voice signature of a user and detecting a first phrase spoken by the user in the second sound recording;
analyze the first sound recording to identify a bio metric voice signature of a user and detecting a first phrase spoken by the user in the first sound recording;
14
identify a good or service based at least in part on the first phrase spoken by the user in the first sound recording;
identify a good or service based at least in part on the first phrase spoken by the user in the first sound recording;
14
determine that a physical location of the first device corresponds with a source of the identified good or service; and
determine that the physical location corresponds with a source of the identified good or service;
14
visually present, in a dashboard of an application running on the first device, perceptible elements using the one or more user interfaces on a display screen of the first device to present a financial product as an option for paying for the good or service.
visually present, in a dashboard of an application running on the first device, perceptible elements using the one or more user interfaces on a display screen of the first device to present the underwritten loan as an option for paying for the goods and services.
14
App #18/656499 (claim 20)
US Pat. No. 11,978,094
Claim no.
a service provider computing system comprising:
a service provider computing system comprising:
16
a network interface configured to communicate via a telecommunications network; and
a network interface configured to communicate via a telecommunications network; and
16
a processor configured to:
a processor configured to:
16
determine a physical location of a first device based at least in part on:
determine a physical location of a first device based at least in part on a detected activity comprising at least one of:
16
capturing a first sound recording using a first sound sensor of the first device;
identify a good or service by:
capturing a first sound recording using a first sound sensor of the first device;
16
generating a first sound signature using the first sound recording;
identifying, by the one or more processors, a sound signature based on ambient sounds analyzed in the first sound recording captured by the first device of a user;
1
determining that the first sound signature is indicative of a location characteristic associated with a physical location; and
determining, by the one or more processors, a physical location of the first device of the user based at least in part on the sound signature being indicative of the physical location;
1
determining the physical location of the first device [based on data obtained from a location sensor of the first device] and based on the first sound signature being indicative of the location characteristic associated with the physical location;
detection of the physical location of the first device based at least in part on a sound signature generated using ambient sounds captured by a sound sensor of the first device;
16
…based on data obtained from a location sensor of the first device…
…wherein determining the physical location is further based at least in part on a sensor
3
capture a second sound recording using the first sound sensor of the first device;
analyze the second sound recording to identify a biometric voice signature of a user and detecting a first phrase spoken by the user in the first sound recording;
analyzing the first sound recording to identify a biometric voice signature of a user and detecting a first phrase spoken by the user in the first sound recording; and
16
identify a good or service based at least in part on the first phrase spoken by the user in the first sound recording;
identifying the good or service based at least in part on the first phrase spoken by the user in the first sound recording;
16
determine, responsive to determining that the physical location of the first device corresponds to a source of the good or service, a financial product; and
determine, responsive to determining that the physical location of the first device corresponds to a source of the identified good or service, an interest rate and a loan amount fora loan based at least in part on the identified good or service, an account balance of the user, and an amount of debt of the user;
16
transmit information corresponding to the financial product to the first device as an option for paying for the good or service.
transmit loan data corresponding to the underwritten loan to the first device for perceptible presentation via one or more user interfaces in a dashboard of the application of the first device to indicate on a display screen of the first device that the underwritten loan as an option for paying for the goods and services.
16
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-17 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
capturing, [by one or more processors,] a first sound recording [using a first sound sensor of a first device];
generating, [by the one or more processors,] a first sound signature using the first sound recording;
determining, [by the one or more processors,] that the first sound signature is indicative of a location characteristic associated with a physical location;
determining, [by the one or more processors,] the physical location of the first device based on data obtained [from a location sensor of the first device] and based on the first sound signature being indicative of the location characteristic associated with the physical location;
capturing, [by the one or more processors,] a second sound recording [using the first sound sensor of the first device];
analyzing, [by the one or more processors,] the second sound recording to identify a biometric voice signature of a user and detecting a first phrase spoken by the user in the first sound recording;
identifying, [by the one or more processors,] a good or service based at least in part on the first phrase spoken by the user in the first sound recording;
determining, [by the one or more processors,] based on the physical location of the first device, that the first device is near a source of the good or service; and
in response to determining that the physical location corresponds with the source of the good or service: visually presenting, [in a dashboard of an application running on the first device, on a display screen of the first device,] a financial product as an option for paying for the good or service.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite a commercial or legal interaction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The one or more processors, first device, sound sensors, and application running on the first device in Claim 1 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of one or more processors, a first device, sound sensors, and an application running on the first device. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 6, 7, 11, and 13 include the additional element of a second device. The additional element of a second device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 6, 7, 11, and 13 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 8-10, 12, and 14-17 further define the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 2-5, 8-10, 12, and 14-17 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5, 8-10, 12, and 14-17 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 2-5, 8-10, 12, and 14-17 are not patent-eligible.
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 18-19 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent device claim 18 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 18 recites the following limitations:
[a first sound sensor configured to] detect ambient sounds;
[a location sensor configured to] detect location data associated with the first device;
[a network interface configured to] communicate [via a telecommunications network];
[one or more user interfaces configured to] present perceptible elements; and
[a processor configured to:] capture a first sound recording [using the first sound sensor];
generate a first sound signature using the first sound recording based at least in part on the ambient sounds detected in the first sound recording;
determine that the first sound signature is indicative of a location characteristic regarding a physical location;
determine the physical location of the first device based on data obtained [from the location sensor of the first device] and based on the first sound signature being indicative of the location characteristic regarding the physical location;
capture a second sound recording [using the first sound sensor];
analyze the second sound recording to identify a biometric voice signature of a user and detecting a first phrase spoken by the user in the second sound recording;
identify a good or service based at least in part on the first phrase spoken by the user in the first sound recording;
determine that the physical location of the first device corresponds with a source of the good or service; and
visually present, [in a dashboard of an application running on the first device,] perceptible elements [using the one or more user interfaces on a display screen of the first device] to present a financial product as an option for paying for the good or service.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite a commercial or legal interaction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The sound sensor, location sensor, network interface, telecommunications network, one or more user interfaces, processor, and application running on the first device in Claim 18 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a sound sensor, a location sensor, a network interface, a telecommunications network, one or more user interfaces, a processor, and an application running on the first device. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim 18 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claim 19 further defines the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 18 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 19 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 18-19 are not patent-eligible.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 20 is directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 20 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 20 recites the following limitations:
[a network interface configured to] communicate [via a telecommunications network]; and
[a processor configured to:] determine a physical location of a first device based at least in part on:
capturing a first sound recording [using a first sound sensor of the first device];
generating a first sound signature using the first sound recording;
determining that the first sound signature is indicative of a location characteristic associated with a physical location; and
determining the physical location of the first device based on data obtained from a location sensor of the first device and based on the first sound signature being indicative of the location characteristic associated with the physical location;
capture a second sound recording using the first sound sensor of the first device;
analyze the second sound recording to identify a biometric voice signature of a user and detecting a first phrase spoken by the user in the first sound recording;
identify a good or service based at least in part on the first phrase spoken by the user in the first sound recording;
determine, responsive to determining that the physical location of the first device corresponds to a source of the good or service, a financial product; and
transmit information corresponding to the financial product to the first device as an option for paying for the good or service.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The network interface, telecommunications network, processor, sound sensor of the first device, and application running on the first device in Claim 20 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a network interface, a telecommunications network, a processor, a sound sensor of the first device, and an application running on the first device. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim 20 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Examiner’s Analysis of Prior Art
The cited reference(s) of Morrison (US 2010/0106498) and Flowers (US 2017/0323345) do not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed invention. Morrison teaches a system and method for targeted advertising. Flowers teaches systems and methods for using cognitive computing to provide targeted offers for preferred products to a user via a mobile device. However, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious capturing, by one or more processors, a first sound recording using a first sound sensor of a first device; analyzing, by the one or more processors, the first sound recording to identify a biometric voice signature of a user and detecting a first phrase spoken by the user in the first sound recording; identifying, by the one or more processors, a good or service based at least in part on the first phrase spoken by the user in the first sound recording; determining, based on data acquired by the first device, by the one or more processors, that the first device is near a source of the identified good or service; and in response to determining that the physical location corresponds with the source of the identified good or service: visually presenting, in a dashboard of an application running on the first device, on a display screen of the first device, a financial product as an option for paying for the identified good or service, as described by claims 1-20.
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Kurapati (US 20160086222) discloses a method and system to remind users of targeted offers in similar categories.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, MICHAEL ANDERSON can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
May 9, 2026
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights