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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the type of activity" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 7 will be interpreted as “a type of activity”.
Claim 17 is analogous to claim 7, therefore claim 17 has the same issues as claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the type of activity" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 8 will be interpreted as “a type of activity”.
Claim 18 is analogous to claim 8, therefore claim 18 has the same issues as claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to the statutory class of a process or apparatus.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
An information processing apparatus comprising:
a display;
a memory that stores a program; and
at least one processor that executes the program, wherein the processor is configured to,
display each date of a predetermined period on the display in association with information indicating a record of a user's activity on the date, and
perform statistical processing on the record of the user's activity during the predetermined period, and display a processing result of the statistical processing on the display.
The limitation underline can be considered to describe a mathematical concept, namely a calculation of user activity during a time period.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional limitations of “display each date of a predetermined period” and “display a processing result” are insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and outputting results (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional limitation of “a display”, “a memory”, and “at least one processor” does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)).
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2A, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 10, 11, 12, and 20 are analogous to claim 1. Claim 10 additionally recites “a communication device” and “transmit the processing result … via the communication device” which are insignificant extra-solution activity implemented through use of a general-purpose computer. Claim 11 additionally recites “a communication device”, “transmit information … via the communication device”, and “receive a processing result” which are insignificant extra-solution activity implemented through use of a general-purpose computer. Claim 12 is a method claim with analogous limitations to claim 1. Claim 20 additionally recites “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” which is merely a generic computer processing component. These additional elements are separate from the abstract idea that needs to be considered at Prong 2 of the 101 analysis. However, these additional elements do not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Claims 10, 11, 12, and 20 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
Dependent Claims 2-9 are similarly ineligible. Dependent Claim 2 adds the recited “performs statistical processing” to the abstract idea limitations discussed above. Claim 2 additionally recites “an inputter that receives a change in the predetermined period” and “displays the processing result” which are insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and outputting results. Dependent Claim 3 adds the recited “performs statistical processing” to the abstract idea limitations. Claim 3 additionally recites “displays the processing result” which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Dependent Claim 4 adds recited “the statistical processing” to the abstract idea limitations. Claim 4 additionally recites “a communication device the acquires record information” which is insignificant extra-solution activity implemented through use of a general-purpose computer. Dependent Claim 5 additionally recites “the processor displays” and “for each type of activity” which only determines which values are used in insignificant extra-solution activity. Dependent Claim 6 adds the recited “statistical processing” to the abstract idea limitations. Claim 6 additionally recites “for each type of activity” which only determines which values are used in the statistical processing, as such it does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 6 additionally recites “displays the processing result” which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Dependent Claim 7 adds the recited “calculates” to the abstract idea limitations. Claim 7 additionally recites “the type of activity” which only determines which values are used in the calculations, as such it does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 7 additionally recites “displays a calculated result” which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Dependent Claim 8 adds the recited “calculates” to the abstract idea limitations. Claim 8 additionally recites “the type of activity” which only determines which values are used in the calculations, as such it does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 8 additionally recites “displays a calculated result” which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Dependent Claim 9 adds the recited “a value … satisfies a target value of activity” and “a value … does not satisfy a target value of activity” to the abstract idea limitations. Claim 9 additionally recites “display a first icon” and “display a second icon” which is insignificant extra-solution activity. None of these dependent claims recite any further additional elements which would cause the claim as a whole to integrate the recited abstract idea into a particular practical application at Prong 2, or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea at Step 2B. Claims 2-9 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
Dependent Claims 13-19 are analogous to claims 2-4 and 6-9, and are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 10-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Douglas (US 20220366376 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Douglas teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
a display (Display 830 Fig. 8; Para 86)
a memory that stores a program (Computer-Readable Storage Medium 824 Fig. 8; Para 91: “the one or more program modules stored within the computer-readable storage medium 824”); and
at least one processor that executes the program (Processor 802 Fig. 8; Para 91: “program instructions or code that may be executed by the processor 802 to perform various operations, including the techniques described herein”), wherein the processor is configured to,
display each date of a predetermined period on the display in association with information indicating a record of a user's activity on the date (Fig. 2A; Para 55: “an event section 204 of the calendar view includes calendar content items for each day within the week”), and
perform statistical processing on the record of the user's activity during the predetermined period (Para 34: “The categorized calendar content items are then used to identify time patterns exhibited by the user”), and
display a processing result of the statistical processing on the display (Para 35: “the identified time patterns are then incorporated into a time mold that is stored with the calendar content data corresponding to the user's map calendar and visually presented to the user via the map calendar GUI”).
Regarding Claim 2, Douglas teaches further comprising an inputter (826 Input/Output Subsystem Fig. 8) that receives a change in the predetermined period by user operation (Para 74: “receiving, via the surfaced map calendar GUI, user input representing a command to navigate to a second zoom level and/or a second panning position of the map calendar”),
wherein the processor changes the display period of the date to the changed predetermined period in response to the change of the predetermined period on the inputter (Para 74: “in response to the user input, navigating to the second zoom level and/or the second panning position of the map calendar such that the interactive visualization encompasses a second set of calendar content items”),
performs statistical processing on the record of the activity during the changed predetermined period, and displays the processing result of the statistical processing on the display (Para 74: “dynamically adapting, via the surfaced map calendar GUI, the visual overlay of the time mold such that the time mold is displayed relative to the second set of calendar content items”).
Regarding Claim 3, Douglas teaches wherein the processor performs statistical processing on the record of the user's activity during a period specified by the user operation among dates of the predetermined period displayed on the display, and displays the processing result of the statistical processing on the display (Para 74: “dynamically adapting, via the surfaced map calendar GUI, the visual overlay of the time mold such that the time mold is displayed relative to the second set of calendar content items”).
Regarding Claim 4, Douglas teaches further comprising a communication device (system bus 810 Fig. 8) that acquires record information of a user’s activity (Calendar Content Data 818 Fig. 8), wherein the processor (Processor 802 Fig. 8) performs the statistical processing based on the record information acquired by the communication device (Para 91: “program instructions or code that may be executed by the processor 802 to perform various operations, including the techniques described herein”).
Regarding Claim 5, Douglas teaches wherein the processor displays on the display the information indicating a record of the user’s activity for each type of activity (Para 24: “provides for the categorization of calendar content items within the user's map calendar based on particular time categories corresponding to the calendar content items. Such time categories may include, for example, a work time category, a school time category, a personal time category, a family time category, a sleep time category, an exercise time category, a study time category”).
Regarding Claim 6, Douglas teaches wherein the processor performs the statistical processing for each type of activity, and displays the processing result of the statistical processing for each type of activity on the display (Para 61: “when the user activates the time mold functionality via the toggle 208, the calendar content items are automatically separated into a number of colored, shaded, or otherwise visually-distinguishable blocks, where each block represents a discrete chunk of time that corresponds to a particular time category”).
Regarding Claim 10, Douglas teaches a server (Computing System 800 Fig. 8; Para 87: “In some embodiments, the computing system 800 may be a server”) comprising:
a communication device (Communication Connection 836 Fig. 8; Para 88);
a memory that stores a program (Computer-Readable Storage Medium 824 Fig. 8; Para 91: “the one or more program modules stored within the computer-readable storage medium 824”); and
at least one processor that executes the program (Processor 802 Fig. 8; Para 91: “program instructions or code that may be executed by the processor 802 to perform various operations, including the techniques described herein”), wherein the processor is configured to,
receive a display period of information indicating a record of an activity by a user on a display from an information processing apparatus including the display via the communication device (Para 74: “receiving, via the surfaced map calendar GUI, user input representing a command to navigate to a second zoom level and/or a second panning position of the map calendar” and Para 88: “the remote computing devices 832 are logically connected to the computing system 800 through a network interface 834 and then connected via a communication connection 836”),
perform statistical processing on the record of the user’s activity during the received display period (Para 34: “The categorized calendar content items are then used to identify time patterns exhibited by the user”), and
transmit the processing result of the statistical processing to the information processing apparatus via the communication device (Para 74: “dynamically adapting, via the surfaced map calendar GUI, the visual overlay of the time mold such that the time mold is displayed relative to the second set of calendar content items” and Para 88: “the remote computing devices 832 are logically connected to the computing system 800 through a network interface 834 and then connected via a communication connection 836”).
Regarding Claim 11, Douglas teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
a display (Display 830 Fig. 8);
a communication device (System Bus 810 Fig. 8);
a memory that stores a program (Computer-Readable Storage Medium 824 Fig. 8; Para 91: “the one or more program modules stored within the computer-readable storage medium 824”); and
at least one processor that executes the program (Processor 802 Fig. 8; Para 91: “program instructions or code that may be executed by the processor 802 to perform various operations, including the techniques described herein”), wherein the processor is configured to,
display each date of a predetermined period on the display in association with information indicating a record of a user's activity on the date (Fig. 2A; Para 55: “an event section 204 of the calendar view includes calendar content items for each day within the week”), and
transmit information of the predetermined period to an external device via the communication device (828 Input/Output Device(s) Fig. 8; Para 74: “receiving, via the surfaced map calendar GUI, user input representing a command to navigate to a second zoom level and/or a second panning position of the map calendar”. The examiner notes that the computing system 800 receives information of a predetermined period which is transmitted from the Input/Output Devices by a user.),
receive a processing result of statistical processing on a record of a user's activity during the predetermined period from the external device via the communication device, and display the processing result of the statistical processing on the display (Display 830 Fig. 8; Para 35: “the identified time patterns are then incorporated into a time mold that is stored with the calendar content data corresponding to the user's map calendar and visually presented to the user via the map calendar GUI”).
Regarding Claim 12, Douglas teaches a display method used in an information processing apparatus including a display, the method comprising:
displaying each date of a predetermined period on the display in association with information indicating a record of a user's activity on the date (Fig. 2A; Para 55: “an event section 204 of the calendar view includes calendar content items for each day within the week”), and
performing statistical processing on the record of the user's activity during the predetermined period (Para 34: “The categorized calendar content items are then used to identify time patterns exhibited by the user”), and
displaying a processing result of the statistical processing on the display (Para 35: “the identified time patterns are then incorporated into a time mold that is stored with the calendar content data corresponding to the user's map calendar and visually presented to the user via the map calendar GUI”).
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations of claim 13 are analogous to claim 2.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations of claim 14 are analogous to claim 3.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations of claim 15 are analogous to claim 4.
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations of claim 16 are analogous to claim 6.
Regarding Claim 20, Douglas teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Non-Volatile Memory 808 Fig. 8) having a program stored thereon for controlling a computer including a display (Display 830 Fig. 8),
a memory that stores a program (Computer-Readable Storage Medium 824 Fig. 8; Para 91: “the one or more program modules stored within the computer-readable storage medium 824), and
at least one processor that executes the program (Processor 802 Fig. 8; Para 91: “program instructions or code that may be executed by the processor 802 to perform various operations, including the techniques described herein”), wherein the program controls the processor to,
display each date of a predetermined period on the display in association with information indicating a record of a user's activity on the date (Fig. 2A; Para 55: “an event section 204 of the calendar view includes calendar content items for each day within the week”), and
perform statistical processing on the record of the user's activity during the predetermined period (Para 34: “The categorized calendar content items are then used to identify time patterns exhibited by the user”), and
display a processing result of the statistical processing on the display (Para 35: “the identified time patterns are then incorporated into a time mold that is stored with the calendar content data corresponding to the user's map calendar and visually presented to the user via the map calendar GUI”).
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.
Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas in view of Teller (US 20040133081 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Douglas teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Douglas further teaches wherein, if the type of activity is related to exercise (Para 24: “Such time categories may include, for example… an exercise time category”).
Douglas does not explicitly teach the processor calculates at least one of a number of times of exercise, exercise time, a distance traveled, calories burned, and average pace of movement during the predetermined period by statistical processing, and displays a calculated result on the display.
Teller teaches the processor calculates at least one of a number of times of exercise, exercise time (Para 106: “amount of time spent exercising aerobically or engaging in a vigorous lifestyle activity”), a distance traveled, calories burned, and average pace of movement during the predetermined period by statistical processing (Para 90: “the individual user's data from network storage device 100 for a predetermined time period” and “software for manipulating and performing calculations utilizing the data to put the data in appropriate format for presentation to the user”), and
displays a calculated result on the display (Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the invention of Douglas with the method of Teller by adding the calculations of Teller to the calendar of Douglas. Doing so would improve the functionality of the calendar by informing a user as to how much they have exercised in a given time period.
Regarding Claim 8, Douglas teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Douglas further teaches wherein, if the type of activity is related to learning (Para 24: “Such time categories may include, for example… a study time category”).
Douglas does not explicitly teach the processor calculates for the predetermined period, by statistical processing, at least one of a number of times of learning, learning time, a number of times of learning or learning time for each type of subject learned, a number of times of learning or learning time for each type of tool used for learning, and a number of times of learning or learning time for each location of learning, and displays a calculated result on the display.
Teller teaches the processor calculates for the predetermined period, by statistical processing (Para 90: “the individual user's data from network storage device 100 for a predetermined time period” and “software for manipulating and performing calculations utilizing the data to put the data in appropriate format for presentation to the user”), at least one of a number of times of learning, learning time (Fig. 8; Para 110: “time spent during the session, shown at 255”), a number of times of learning or learning time for each type of subject learned, a number of times of learning or learning time for each type of tool used for learning, and a number of times of learning or learning time for each location of learning, and
displays a calculated result on the display (Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the invention of Douglas with the method of Teller by adding the calculations of Teller to the calendar of Douglas. Doing so would improve the functionality of the calendar by informing a user as to how much they have studied in a given time period.
Regarding Claim 17, the limitations of claim 17 are analogous to claim 7.
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations of claim 18 are analogous to claim 8.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas in view of Lee (Lee US 20200108305 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Douglas teaches the limitations of claim 1, however Douglas does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to, display on the display a first icon as information indicating the record of the user’s activity when a value indicating the record of the activity satisfies a target value of the activity, and display on the display a second icon with a display manner different from the first icon as information indicating the record of the user’s activity when a value indicating the record of the activity does not satisfy a target value of the activity.
Lee teaches wherein the processor is configured to,
display on the display a first icon as information indicating the record of the user’s activity when a value indicating the record of the activity satisfies a target value of the activity (532 Fig. 49; Para 309: “the plan tracker 532 could include a series of icons or hash marks that are each representative of an individual workout. Completed, and uncompleted workouts maybe differentiated by color-coding, shading, or other visual indicia”), and
display on the display a second icon with a display manner different from the first icon as information indicating the record of the user’s activity when a value indicating the record of the activity does not satisfy a target value of the activity (532 Fig. 49; Para 309: “the plan tracker 532 could include a series of icons or hash marks that are each representative of an individual workout. Completed, and uncompleted workouts maybe differentiated by color-coding, shading, or other visual indicia”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the invention of Douglas with the method of Lee by adding the icons of Lee to the calendar of Douglas. Doing so would allow for users to more easily identify what has or has not been accomplished from looking at the calendar.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations of claim 19 are analogous to claim 9.
Alternate Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US 20230098294 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier publication date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A); or (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
a display (Display 13 Fig. 1);
a memory that stores a program (Storage 12 and Program 121 Fig. 1); and
at least one processor that executes the program (CPU 11 Fig. 1), wherein the processor is configured to,
display each date of a predetermined period on the display in association with information indicating a record of a user's activity on the date (Para 52: “The history may be displayed, for example, weekly, monthly or yearly in a switchable manner”), and
perform statistical processing on the record of the user's activity during the predetermined period (Para 38: “an analysis process of running/walking based on the obtained measured data is performed”), and
display a processing result of the statistical processing on the display (Para 40: “These analysis results (analyzed data) are displayed on the display screen of the display 13 (U3)”).
Regarding Claim 12, Suzuki teaches a display method used in an information processing apparatus including a display, the method comprising:
displaying each date of a predetermined period on the display in association with information indicating a record of a user's activity on the date (Para 52: “The history may be displayed, for example, weekly, monthly or yearly in a switchable manner”), and
performing statistical processing on the record of the user's activity during the predetermined period (Para 38: “an analysis process of running/walking based on the obtained measured data is performed”), and
displaying a processing result of the statistical processing on the display (Para 40: “These analysis results (analyzed data) are displayed on the display screen of the display 13 (U3)”).
Regarding Claim 20, Suzuki teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a program stored thereon for controlling a computer including
a display (Display 13 Fig. 1),
a memory that stores a program (Storage 12 and Program 121 Fig. 1), and
at least one processor that executes the program (CPU 11 Fig. 1), wherein the program controls the processor to,
display each date of a predetermined period on the display in association with information indicating a record of a user's activity on the date (Para 52: “The history may be displayed, for example, weekly, monthly or yearly in a switchable manner”), and
perform statistical processing on the record of the user's activity during the predetermined period (Para 38: “an analysis process of running/walking based on the obtained measured data is performed”), and
display a processing result of the statistical processing on the display (Para 40: “These analysis results (analyzed data) are displayed on the display screen of the display 13 (U3)”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODGER MENSING whose telephone number is (571)270-0129. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/RODGER STEWART MENSING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights