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
Claims 2, 6, and 11 have been cancelled, and Claim 14 has been added as new; therefore, Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10 and 12-14 are currently pending in application 18/716,202.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “the voice data” which contains insufficient antecedent basis. Correction for proper antecedent basis is requested.
Claim 7 recites “the related party terminal” which contains insufficient antecedent basis. Correction for proper antecedent basis is requested.
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, 3-5, 7-10 and 12-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,536,880. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions disclose equivalent elements for tracking and adjusting advertising to increase revenue and limit transaction charges.
18/716,202 (As of 1/22/2026)
US 12,536,880
Independent Claims 1, 12, and 13
An information processing apparatus (method/system) comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
determine whether a user who has visited an automatic teller machine (ATM) is talking on a phone based on a comparison between skeleton information of the use and registered skeleton information, the skeleton information being obtained from first data by machine learning, the first data being a captured image related to a target area based on the ATM, and the registered skeleton information being information related to a phone call action;
[Dependent Claim 7. (currently amended): The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: switch an operation mode of the ATM from a first operation mode, for executing a normal operation, to a second operation model for outputting information at least partially different from information outputted in the first operation mode, in a case where it is determined that the user is talking on a phone, transmit data regarding a state of the user in a target period based on the switching to the second operation mode to an interested party terminal and acquire the determination result of presence or absence of the incident from the related party terminal; and change an operation content of the second operation based on at least the determination result of presence or absence of the incident.]
start acquisition of second data that suggests a state of the user and has a data type different from that of the first data in a case where it is determined that the user is talking on a phone; and
acquire a determination result of presence or absence of an incident using the first data and the second data; and
update, based on the determination result of presence or absence of the incident, the registered skeleton information.
Independent Claims 1, 6, and 7
An information processing apparatus (method/system) comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to;
determine whether a user who has visited an automatic teller machine (ATM) is talking on a phone based on at least one of a captured image, voice data, and received radio wave data of a target area based on the ATM;
switch an operation mode of the ATM from a first operation mode in which a normal operation is executed to a second operation mode in which information at least partially different from information output in the first operation mode is output in a case where it is determined that the user is talking on a phone;
transmit data suggesting a state of the user in a target period based on the switching to an interested party terminal used by an interested party, acquire a determination result as to whether there is an incident from the interested party terminal;
change an operation content of the second operation mode based on at least the determination result of the presence or absence of the incident;
determine whether the user is talking on a phone based on a similarity between at least a part of skeletal information extracted from the captured image obtained by capturing the user who has visited the ATM and at least a part of registration skeletal information extracted from a registered image registered in advance in a call determination DB, and
update the registration skeletal information registered in the call determination DB based on at least a determination result of the presence or absence of the incident.
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, 3-5, 8-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10 and 12-14 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea), without providing a practical application, and without providing significantly more.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1,
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10 and 14 are directed toward an apparatus (system). Claim 12 is directed toward a process (method). Claim 13 is directed toward a computer program product having computer-readable tangible storage media (article of manufacture). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10 and 12-14 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 12 and 13 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of determining fraudulent activity.
Regarding independent claims 1, 12 and 13, the underlined limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
An information processing method comprising, wherein a computer
determine whether a user who has visited an automatic teller machine (ATM) is talking on a phone based a comparison between skeleton information of the user and registered skeleton information, the skeleton information being obtained from first data by machine learning, the first data being a captured image related to a target area based on the ATM, and the registered skeleton information being information related to a phone call action;
start acquisition of second data that has a data type different from that of the first data in a case where it is determined that the user is talking on a phone; and
acquire a determination result of presence or absence of an incident using the first data and the second data; and
update, based on the determination result of presence or absence of the incident, the registered skeleton information.
As the underlined claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 12 and 13 are directed to the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)).
Dependent claims 3-5, 8-10 and 14 provide further details to the abstract idea of claims 1, 12, and 13 regarding the received data, therefore, these claims include certain methods of organizing human activities for similar reasons provided above for claims 1, 12 and 13.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10 and 12-14 fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as an “information processing apparatus”, a “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program”, a “computer”, a “terminal”, and “machine learning”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The independent claim(s) have/ has been amended by Applicant to include a machine learning algorithm; however, The presence of a machine learning algorithm or computer implementations do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The machine learning algorithm and computer limitations claimed herein are simply used as a tool to apply the abstract idea without transforming the underlying abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. As claimed, machine learning algorithm is not iteratively trained to improve the accuracy of the model itself, it merely processes data to achieve a data correlation objective based on saved data and received input. Examiner notes that the additional limitations of machine learning and computer processing do not result in computer functionality or technical/technology improvement and hence do not result in a practical application. The machine learning algorithm and the computer limitation simply process the data through inputting and outputting data. Processing data is mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 Fed.Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, Lending Tree, LLLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2019)(non-precedential). Thus, the additional limitations of machine learning algorithm and computer limitations do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant’s claimed invention. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Examples where the Courts have found selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated to be insignificant extra-solution activity include selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Applicant’s limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits. Dependent claims 3-5, 8-10 and 14 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B,
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10 and 12-14 fail to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as an “information processing apparatus”, a “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program”, a “computer”, a “terminal”, and “machine learning”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 3-5, 8-10 and 14 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 12 and 13 respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 12 and 13; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits. The addition of another abstract concept to the limitations of the claims does not render the claim other than abstract. Under the Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (PEG 2019), it specifically states that narrowing an abstract idea of claims do not resolve the claims of being "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements in the dependent claims only serve to further limit the abstract idea utilizing the computer components as a tool and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1, 3-5, 8-10 and 12-14 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims 1, 3-5, 8-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sauogawa (JP 2010-079748 A, the Examiner sited portions below are from the machine translations for each foreign reference) in view of Goldstein et al. (US 2022/0057519 A1).
As per independent Claims 1, 12, and 13, Sauogawa discloses an information processing apparatus (a method; a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a procedure) comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (See at least Para 0007, Para 0128-0131):
determine whether a user who has visited an automatic teller machine (ATM) is talking on a phone based on analysis of information of the user by a captured image related to a target area based on the ATM (See at least Para 0012, mobile phone usage detection unit; Para 0018, “… the mobile phone usage detection unit includes an image acquisition unit that acquires image data including the head of the user operating the terminal, and an image determination unit that determines whether the image data shows image.”; and Para 0035-0036);
(See at least Para 0012, voice data) [Under BRI* of the claim, the second step ("start acquisition of second data... in a case where it is determined that the user is talking on a phone") is explicitly conditional. If the condition is false, the action is not required, if the determination is made in the previous element that a user is not talking on a phone; See Applicant’s Specification Para 0074, “… Meanwhile, when there is no registration skeletal information R of which the similarity is equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold (No in S44), the call determination unit 204 returns the processing to S41 without determining that the phone call action is detected.”; See also Applicant’s Fig. 2, S11, “NO” Decision]; and
(See at least Para 0012, mobile phone usage detection unit); and [Under BRI*, if no second data is acquired because the user was not on the phone (See Applicant’s Fig.2, S10), the subsequent step of acquiring a result using "the first data and the second data" also becomes impossible or unnecessary, thereby rendering the final step (updating based on that result) inapplicable; See Applicant’s Fig. 2, S11, “NO” Decision].
* Under USPTO Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) standards, if it is determined that a user does not have a phone, the method steps are generally not required to be performed because the preamble condition ("talking on a phone") is not met, rendering the dependent subsequent steps (data acquisition, incident determination, and updating) inapplicable in that specific instance.
Sauogawa, directed to a fraud prevention device and method, discloses wherein a “mobile phone usage detection unit includes an image acquisition unit that acquires image data including the head of the user operating the terminal, and an image determination unit that determines whether the image data shows image characteristics of the mobile phone use” (Para 0018) and carrying out steps to prevent bank transfer fraud (See at least Para 0025-0028), but is silent with respect to “a comparison between skeleton information of the user and registered skeleton information, the skeleton information being obtained from first data by machine learning, the first data being a captured image, and the registered skeleton information being information related to a phone call action”, as recited in claims 1, 12, and 13.
Goldstein, also directed to user monitoring for threat detection (See at least Abstract, Para 0004), discloses, regarding claims 1, 12, and 13, a comparison between skeleton information of the user and registered skeleton information, the skeleton information being obtained from first data by machine learning, the first data being a captured image, and the registered skeleton information being information related to a phone call action (See at least Fig.5; Para 0122, “In an embodiment, and now with continued reference to FIG. 5, identified landmarks may be organized and/or tracked according to a joint hierarchy. For instance, and without limitation, a skeleton may include 32 joints with a joint hierarchy flowing from a center of the body to a plurality of extremities. Each connection, such as a bone, may link a parent joint with a child joint. Processor 136 and/or remote device 140 may track relative positions of landmarks, in combination with joint hierarchy, to determine poses and/or actions of a person being tracked; poses and/or sequences of poses may be further classified to behaviors as described below.”; Para 0650, “Behavior machine-learning model may be trained as a function of a behavior training set. As used in this disclosure “behavior training set” is a training set that correlates an input to at least a behavior descriptor, wherein input comprises any datum and/or information that the imaging device…”; Para 0651, “Still referring to FIG. 40, remote device 4036 may provide modifications to the behavior machine-learning model. For example, and without limitation, a modification may be comprised of a firmware update, a software update, a behavior machine-learning correction, and the like thereof. As a non-limiting example a software update may incorporate a new behavior machine-learning model that relates to input of a plurality of inputs to a modified behavior descriptor. As a further non-limiting example a remote device may transmit a modified behavior machine-learning model, wherein the modified behavior machine-learning model may relate new behavior descriptors to previously identified inputs of a plurality of inputs. Additionally or alternatively, behavior machine-learning model may be transmitted to remote device, wherein remote device may update the behavior training data and transmit an updated behavior machine-learning model back to apparatus 4004.” Para 0656, “Still referring to FIG. 40, threat level 4048 may be determined as a function of processor 4044 identifying an object in possession of subject 4012. As used in this disclosure an “object” is one or more inanimate compositions of matter that may or may not be utilized in conducting a behavior. As a non-limiting example, an object in possession of subject 4012 may include one or more cell phones, flashlights, shoes, pens, neckties, wallets, keys, water bottles, and the like thereof.”).
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have included employing the user skeleton machine learning comparison features of Goldstein within the system of Sauogawa for at least the benefit of providing improved fraud protection while increasing the efficiency and experience for legitimate users [0007] (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
As per Claim 3, Sauogawa disclose wherein at least one processor further configured to execute the instructions to: estimate a talk content based on voice data acquired at a predetermined position with respect to the ATM, which is the second data; and determine the presence or absence of the incident based on the captured image and the talk content (Sauogawa: See at least Para 0025-0028).
As per Claim 4, Sauogawa disclose wherein at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: transmit the first data and the second data to an interested party terminal used by an interested party; and receive, from the interested party terminal, a determination result of presence or absence of an incident input to the interested party terminal (Sauogawa: See at least Para 0025-0028).
As per Claim 5 (4), Sauogawa disclose wherein at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to transmit user information regarding the user to the interested party terminal together with the first data and the second data (Sauogawa: See at least Para 0025-0028).
As per Claim 8 (7), Sauogawa disclose wherein at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to cause the ATM to output question information stored in advance in an operation control database (DB) in the second operation mode (Sauogawa: See at least Para 0025-0028).
As per Claim 9 (8), Sauogawa disclose wherein at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to acquire the determination result of the presence or absence of the incident by further using a response to the question information (Sauogawa: See at least Para 0025-0028).
As per Claim 10 (8), Sauogawa disclose wherein at least one processor configured to: execute the instructions to; perform primary determination on the presence or absence of the incident based on a response to the question information; transmit the first data and the second data to an interested party terminal used by an interested party when a result of the primary determination indicates the presence of the incident; and receive, from the interested party terminal, a determination result of presence or absence of an incident input to the interested party terminal (Sauogawa: See at least Para 0025-0028).
As per new Claim 14 (1), Sauogawa and Goldstein disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether the user is talking on the phone based on a similarity between the skeleton information about a predetermined region of a body and the registered skeleton information about the predetermined region (Sauogawa: See at least Para 0018, “… head of the user …”; Para 0025-0028; and Para 0034) (Goldstein: See at least Para 0122).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/22/2026, with respect to Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10 and 12-14, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are addressed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
February 20, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629