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 .
Applicant's Response
In Applicant's Response dated 5/1/2026, Applicant amended the Claims and argued against all objections and rejections set forth in the previous Office Action.
All objections and rejections not reproduced below are withdrawn.
The rejection of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 previously set forth are maintained.
The prior art rejections of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 previously set forth are maintained.
The examiner appreciates the applicant noting where the support for the amendments are described in the specification.
The Application was filed on 05/31/2024.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1, 15, 20 is/are independent claim(s).
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, 15, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1, 15, 20 is/are determined to be directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this determination is explained below.
The claim(s) is/are directed toward the abstract idea of virtual bookplates.
The claims are merely a digital implementation of what has been done for many years to physical books, adding bookplates to books.
The claim(s) do/does not contain any improvement to a technology or field, nor do they contain any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are not sufficient limitations beyond linking the abstract idea to a computer.
In analyzing the Applicant’s claims for subject matter eligibility, we use the Alice Mayo framework.
See MPEP 2106 - Patent Subject Matter Eligibility.
In step 1 we determine that the claims are a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter", (claim 1 is a method, claim 15 is a system, claim 20 is a medium), so we move to step 2A.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in Prong One we determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then we determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
In step 2A, Prong One we determine that the “detecting”, “in response to detecting” and “in accordance”, limitations in the claims are directed to a judicial exception, namely the abstract idea of virtual bookplates, which falls under the abstract idea grouping of methods of organizing human activity [mental processes, mathematical concepts] as described in MPEP 2106.04(a).
This moves us to Prong Two.
In step 2A, Prong Two we use the factors discussed in 2106.04(d)(I) to determine that the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the claims take the abstract idea of virtual bookplates and merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).] This moves us to step 2B.
In step 2B, we determine that the “at a device that includes one or more input devices” in the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(A)-(B)).
i. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use
In claims 1, 15, the Applicant performs these steps on a "system", in claims 20 the Applicant stores these steps on a “medium”, which does nothing more than link the abstract idea to a computer.
Although the applicant adds the idea of virtual bookplates to a computing device, the addition of a computing device does not add "something more" to the claims. This merely takes the abstract idea and simply adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 6, 10, 12, the same analysis from the independent claims applies to the dependent claims. In addition
The “overlaying the virtual bookplate” from claim 2 and “eBook’ from claim 12 are deemed to fail step 2B for: Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, (See 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, including (II) that describes what courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner).
The “determining” and “identified for displaying” from claim 6 and the recited “selected from a plurality of virtual bookplates” of claim 10 are deemed to fail step 2B as simply Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(A)-(B)). The claims are merely a digital implementation of what has been done for many years to physical books, adding bookplates to books. Crucially, this is an optional process that only some people perform, meaning that some books have a bookplate, but most do not. Additionally, when readers attend a book signing it is common for author to write a personal note, or message, in the book when they sign it. This is also an optional process that only some books have. Sure, the applicant has digitized this process with electronic books, but this is merely adding the idea to a computer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 11-13, 15, 17, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeMello, Marco A. et al. US Pub. No. 2005/0097057 (DeMello).
Claim 1:
[Examiner’s Note: In the spirit of compact prosecution all of the limitations have been rejected, however only one of the “in accordance” limitations are required by the claim. See MPEP 2111.04 (II) Contingent Limitations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.]
DeMello teaches:
A method comprising:
at a device that includes one or more input devices [¶ 0027] (device with multiple types of input devices):
detecting, via the one or more input devices, an input corresponding to a request for a digital content item [¶ 0054] (receipt page may contain information "confirming" the order or thanking the user for his/her order, and also contains links (HTTP POST requests) for downloading each title purchased) [¶ 0032, 46] (requesting access to encrypted LIT files) [¶ 0055] (clicking on the link to initiate download is also a “request”);
in accordance with a determination that a purchaser of the digital content item added a message to be included with the digital content item, [¶ 0037] (source stream 14B, which may include the name of the publisher (or other content source), as well as the bookplate stream 14C, which, for individually sealed (level 3 and/or level 5) titles, includes the consumer's name) [¶ 0060] (level 3 protection includes the user name which is acquired, a user name could be considered “added a message”) [¶ 0031-32, 37, 55-56] (A Bookplate API 94 is provided which returns the purchaser's name (or other information related to the purchaser) from the cryptographically hashed Bookplate stream 14C inside the DRM Storage object 14 of each title 10 (e.g., in the case of individually sealed titles that include the purchaser's name or other identifying information in their meta-data). The string returned by this function may be used on the book cover page 100 to identify the rightful owner of the title 10; an example, in which the string is the user's name, is depicted in FIG. 2)
presenting an interface including a virtual bookplate in association with the digital content item, wherein the virtual bookplate, associated with the digital content item, includes the message [¶ 0022, 31, 37-38, 55-56, 62] ("individually sealed" title is an eBook whose meta-data includes information related to the legitimate purchaser (e.g., the user's name or credit card number, the transaction ID or receipt number from the purchase transaction) [¶ 0031, 38, 55-56] (Figs. 2-3, cover page with bookplate, “ex libris John Beezer”, ex libris is Latin for 'from the books' and is also known as a bookplate, a bookplate is a printed or decorative label pasted into a book to indicate ownership); and
in accordance with a determination that the purchaser of the digital content item did not add a message to be included with the digital content item, presenting an interface including the digital content item without presenting a virtual bookplate [¶ 0006, 22-23] (different levels of protection or how the book is sealed, for level 1, level 2, and level 4 no bookplate is attached which would mean a purchaser “did not add a message”.
Level 1, the content source and/or provider may choose no protection via unsigned and unsealed (clear-text) eBooks that do not include a license. Level 2 is "source sealed," which means that the content has been encrypted and sealed with a key, where the seal is made using a cryptographic hash of the eBook's title's meta-data. Level 4 is "source signed." Source signed eBooks are titles that can be authenticated by a "reader").
Claim 3:
[Examiner’s Note: The specification discloses generating using a Generative Pretrained Image Model (“GPIM”), however the claims do not require a generative model, they simply require generating in the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification which does not include a Generative Pretrained Image Model (“GPIM”)]
DeMello teaches:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising:
in response to detecting the input corresponding to the request to display the digital content item, generating the virtual bookplate for displaying in association with the digital content item based on a virtual bookplate configuration associated with the digital content item [¶ 0031-32, 37, 55-56] (A Bookplate API 94 is provided which returns the purchaser's name (or other information related to the purchaser) from the cryptographically hashed Bookplate stream 14C inside the DRM Storage object 14 of each title 10 (e.g., in the case of individually sealed titles that include the purchaser's name or other identifying information in their meta-data). The string returned by this function may be used on the book cover page 100 to identify the rightful owner of the title 10; an example, in which the string is the user's name, is depicted in FIG. 2) [¶ 0031, 38, 55-56] (Figs. 2-3, cover page with bookplate, “ex libris John Beezer”, ex libris is Latin for 'from the books' and is also known as a bookplate, a bookplate is a printed or decorative label pasted into a book to indicate ownership).
Claim 4:
DeMello teaches:
The method of Claim 3, further comprising:
generating the virtual bookplate configuration for the digital content item based on user input from a purchaser of the digital content item [¶ 0006, 22, 31, 37-43, 54-56] ("individually sealed" content includes in the rights-management data information pertinent to the rightful owner (e.g., the owner's name, credit card number, receipt number or transaction ID for the purchase transaction) [¶ 0027, 44, 48, 5] (user enters commands) [¶ 0031] (user click) [¶ 0038] (user taps).
Claim 6:
DeMello teaches:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether there is any virtual bookplate associated with the digital content item,
wherein the virtual bookplate associated with the digital content item is identified for displaying in association with the digital content item in response to determining that the virtual bookplate is associated with the digital content item [¶ 0031-32, 37, 55-56] (A Bookplate API 94 is provided which returns the purchaser's name (or other information related to the purchaser) from the cryptographically hashed Bookplate stream 14C inside the DRM Storage object 14 of each title 10 (e.g., in the case of individually sealed titles that include the purchaser's name or other identifying information in their meta-data). The string returned by this function may be used on the book cover page 100 to identify the rightful owner of the title 10; an example, in which the string is the user's name, is depicted in FIG. 2).
Claim 7:
DeMello teaches:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising:
in response to detecting the input corresponding to the request to display the digital content item:
determining that the digital content item is associated with the virtual bookplate based on a virtual bookplate configuration corresponding to the digital content item [¶ 0031-32, 37, 55-56] (A Bookplate API 94 is provided which returns the purchaser's name (or other information related to the purchaser) from the cryptographically hashed Bookplate stream 14C inside the DRM Storage object 14 of each title 10 (e.g., in the case of individually sealed titles that include the purchaser's name or other identifying information in their meta-data). The string returned by this function may be used on the book cover page 100 to identify the rightful owner of the title 10; an example, in which the string is the user's name, is depicted in FIG. 2);
requesting, by a first computing device, the virtual bookplate from a second computing device [¶ 0020, 33-34, 45-46, 50-53, 55, 69-72] (server fulfillment, send and receive from server);
receiving, by the first computing device, the virtual bookplate from the second computing device [¶ 0020, 33-34, 45-46, 50-53, 55, 69-72] (server fulfillment, send and receive from server).
Claim 8:
DeMello teaches:
The method of Claim 1, wherein:
the digital content item is owned or licensed to a particular account in association with the virtual bookplate, and
the virtual bookplate is not associated with other variations of the digital content item that are owned or licensed to other respective accounts [¶ 0031, 38, 55-56] (Figs. 2-3, cover page with bookplate, “ex libris John Beezer”, ex libris is Latin for 'from the books' and is also known as a bookplate, a bookplate is a printed or decorative label pasted into a book to indicate ownership).
Claim 11:
DeMello teaches:
The method of Claim 1, wherein:
the virtual bookplate comprises at least one interface element that includes one or more of: (a) content from a social media feed, (b) a message from a purchaser of the digital content item, or (c) an image selected by the purchaser of the digital content item [¶ 0031, 38, 55-56] (Figs. 2-3, cover page with bookplate, “ex libris John Beezer”, this could be considered a “message from a purchases”).
Claim 12:
DeMello teaches:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the digital content item is an eBook [¶ 0019-23] (eBook).
Claim 13:
DeMello teaches:
The method of Claim 1, wherein:
presenting the virtual bookplate in association with the digital content item comprises displaying text of the digital content item such that the virtual bookplate does not cover the text of the digital content item [¶ 0031, 38, 55-56] (Figs. 2-3, cover page with bookplate, “ex libris John Beezer”, the name in the case “does not cover the text” of the book).
Claims 15, 17, 18, 20:
Claim(s) 15 and 20 is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim 1 is a “method” claim, claim 15 is a “system” claim and claim 20 is a “medium” claim, but the steps or elements of each claim are essentially the same.
Claim(s) 17 is/are substantially similar to claim 3 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 18 is/are substantially similar to claim 4 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2, 5, 9, 10, 14, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMello, Marco A. et al. US Pub. No. 2005/0097057 (DeMello) in view of Makower; David et al. US Pub. No. 2014/0002470 (Makower).
Claim 2:
DeMello teaches all the elements as shown above.
DeMello does not appear to explicitly disclose “overlaying”.
However, the disclosure of Makower teaches:
The method of Claim 1, wherein:
presenting the virtual bookplate in association with the digital content item comprises overlaying the virtual bookplate on at least a portion of the digital content item [¶ 0052] (overlaid graphic) [¶ 0056] (overlaid translation) [¶ 0058] (title and author of the character script is overlaid).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of virtual bookplates in DeMello and the method of eBook covers in Makower, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The known technique of eBook covers in Makower could be applied to the electronic books in DeMello. Makower and DeMello are similar devices because each process electronic books. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, “to improve the user experience” [Makower: ¶ 0005, 08, 28, 65].
Claim 5:
Makower teaches:
The method of Claim 1, wherein:
the virtual bookplate is temporarily overlaid on at least a portion of the digital content item in response to user input selecting a command or option associated with the digital content item [¶ 0085] (temporarily displayed) [¶ 0052] (overlaid graphic) [¶ 0056] (overlaid translation) [¶ 0058] (title and author of the character script is overlaid).
Claim 9:
Makower teaches:
The method of Claim 1, wherein:
a format of the virtual bookplate is determined based on attributes of a display of a computing device presenting the interface [¶ 0061-66] (size based on screen size).
Claim 10:
DeMello teaches:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising:
wherein the virtual bookplate is selected from a plurality of virtual bookplates associated with the digital content item [¶ 0031-32, 37, 55-56] (A Bookplate API 94 is provided which returns the purchaser's name (or other information related to the purchaser) from the cryptographically hashed Bookplate stream 14C inside the DRM Storage object 14 of each title 10 (e.g., in the case of individually sealed titles that include the purchaser's name or other identifying information in their meta-data). The string returned by this function may be used on the book cover page 100 to identify the rightful owner of the title 10; an example, in which the string is the user's name, is depicted in FIG. 2).
Makower also teaches: [¶ 0070, 77, 80, 90] (old and new cover art could be a “plurality”).
Claim 14:
Makower teaches:
The method of Claim 1, wherein:
presenting the interface including the virtual bookplate comprises displaying the digital content item and playing a first animation that overlays the virtual bookplate on at least a portion of the digital content item [¶ 0052] (overlaid graphic) [¶ 0056] (overlaid translation) [¶ 0058] (title and author of the character script is overlaid) [¶ 0060, 65-66, 70] (Fig. 7A-7C, animations).
Claims 16, 19:
Claim(s) 16 is/are substantially similar to claim 2 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 19 is/are substantially similar to claim 5 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 1:
Tagliaferri; Alivia et al. US 20130117665 0059 - content creator may sign and/or write a message; this would be a custom message.
DeMello, Marco A. et al. US 20040255115 (DeMello ‘115) In the process of Fig. 7 element '134 makes a determination if the license individualized, this would mean that a book could be displayed without the bookplate.
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claims 3-4, different ways of “generating” a bookplate:
WANG; Wenchao et al. US 20250218082 [¶ 0037] (excerpt from user) [¶ 0106] (generating the background image in the cover by using the generative model based on the excerpt information and the classification information, and the display effect of the text comprises that a name of the book or writings used for representing the excerpt information is displayed in a highlighting effect).
Lu; Yi US 20130332576 owner label of digital service content requested to be lent.
Kraft; Andreas et al. US 20080228869 digital rights management with a rights label.
Yonemoto; Andrew US 20120210269 personalized bookmark, overlay, Digital bookmark; Display of the digital engraving may relate to overlaid text or image data of the engraving on a page of the digital book.
Paperny; Dmitry et al. US 7559034 e-book; Fig. 7, overlay, figs. 8-13 animation overlay.
Citations to Prior Art
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968". In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323,75 USPQ2d 1213,1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264,23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807,10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385,1390,163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 5/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 101 Rejection:
The applicant argues that “The amended claims 1, 15, and 20 recite the practical application of selectively presenting a virtual bookplate based on if a message was added by a purchaser. Such limitations amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(a),” and “such limitations are a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, as discussed in MPEP §” (response page 8).
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are merely a digital implementation of what has been done for many years to physical books, adding bookplates to books. Crucially, this is an optional process that only some people perform, meaning that some books have a bookplate, but most do not. Additionally, when readers attend a book signing it is common for author to write a personal note, or message, in the book when they sign it. This is also an optional process that only some books have. Sure, the applicant has digitized this process with electronic books, but this is merely adding the idea to a computer.
The recited “at a device that includes one or more input devices” in the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(A)-(B)).
This merely takes the abstract idea and simply adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
35 USC 102 Rejection:
The applicant argues that “DeMello does not disclose a purchaser of a digital item adding a message to be included with the digital content item. Additionally, DeMello does not disclose, when the purchaser has not added a message to be included with the digital content item, displaying the digital content item without the virtual bookplate” (response page 9).
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims do not recite what a “message” is or what is included in the “message”. In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims consistent with the specification a “message” could simply be the users name and DeMello discloses adding the name of the user to a book as a bookplate.
DeMello also discloses different levels of authentication, levels 1 through 5. Some of these levels do not include the bookplate, Levels 1, 2, 4. Some of these levels do include the bookplate, levels 3 and 5. This means that for levels 1, 2, and 4 the digital item is displayed without the virtual bookplate.
See the amened rejection above for the explanation of the different levels of authentication and what is included in each level.
In addition to the arguments, the following prior art should be considered.
Tagliaferri; Alivia et al. US 20130117665 0059 - content creator may sign and/or write a message; this would be a custom message.
DeMello, Marco A. et al. US 20040255115 (DeMello ‘115) In the process of Fig. 7 element '134 makes a determination if the license individualized, this would mean that a book could be displayed without the bookplate.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN J SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-3825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:30 EST.
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, ADAM QUELER can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/Benjamin Smith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172 Direct Phone: 571-270-3825
Direct Fax: 571-270-4825
Email: benjamin.smith@uspto.gov
