DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed February 2, 2026. Currently Claims 1-5, 6-8, 10-14, 16, 17 and 20 are pending. Claims 1, 11 and 20 are the independent claims.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-5, 6-8, 10-14, 16, 17 and 20 in the previous office action is maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejections of claims 1-5, 6-8, 10-14, 16, 17 and 20 in the previous office action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Paragraphs 1-2, Page 8, filed February 2, 2026, with respect to Moses, Cheng, Park, and McElroy have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejections of claims 1-5, 6-8, 10-14, 16, 17 and 20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed February 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (e.g. extending forecasting models to account for customizable holiday data with improved accuracy while reducing processing costs and memory usage; remove data; Remarks: Paragraphs 15, 16, 20, 21; Remarks: Last Two Paragraphs, Page 6).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to a well-known business practice – time series forecasting – in this case performing time series forecasting by combining a forecasting deholidayed series data and forecasting holiday effects. While the claims may represent an improvement to the business process of time series forecasting they in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application.
Under the see MPEP § 2106.05, the claims are evaluated to determine if additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)- (h)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(±);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception- see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
In view of the MPEP § 2106.05, one must consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The identified additional non-abstract elements recited in the independent claims are the generic computer processor, storage device, computer readable medium storing instructions. These generic computer hardware merely performs generic computer functions of receiving and processing data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s holiday modeling in forecasting in the general field of time series forecasting and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
These recited additional elements are merely generic computer components. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP § 2106.05 regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Here the claims simply use a computer as a tool and nothing more.
For the reasons outlined above, that the claims recite a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (i.e., processor, storage device, computer readable medium storing instructions) is no more than a generic computer component used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)).
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Here the only additional element recited in the claims beyond the abstract idea is a computer processor, storage device, computer readable medium storing instructions” i.e., generic computer component. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding the plurality of models (foresting) and the first/second models each of these ‘models’ is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using models on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The plurality of models (foresting) and the first/second models are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the plurality of models (foresting) and the first/second models function. The plurality of models (foresting) and the first/second models are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic model to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Similar to the discussion in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Appeal No. 19-1835 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020), where the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that software inventions are patentable in the U.S. with a bright-line statement: “Our precedent is clear that software can make patent-eligible improvements to computer technology, and related claims are eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.” the instant application merely applies the abstract idea using a generic computer as a conduit/tool for the abstract idea and does not improve the functioning of a computer or computer networks, does not improve another technical field and does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem.
Nowhere in the recited claims or in Applicant’s disclosure is there any recitation/discussion of removing data indicated as a holiday by a user but having little to no effect on the forecasting for the purposes of saving processing costs or memory usage as argued.
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 15, this paragraph merely discloses that holidays are a crucial factor in time series forecasting and that static holiday configuration is not transparent and prevents customization of holidays leading to difficulties in evaluating the effectives of incorporating customizable holidays into time series forecasting. At best this paragraph discloses a wished-for business benefit – e.g. evaluating the effectiveness of a customizable holiday as part of a time series forecast – i.e. an improvement in the abstract idea itself. Nothing in this paragraph discloses or discussed at any level of technical solution to a technical problem, nor does this paragraph disclose an improvement in any of the underlying technology (e.g. processor, memory, etc.), nor does this paragraph disclose an improvement in another technical field. More specifically, this paragraph like the remainder of Applicant’s disclose fails to disclose the argued ‘technical’ improvement of reducing processing cost or reducing memory usage.
With regards to argued specification Paragraph 16 this paragraph discloses a wished-for business benefit of improving time series forecasting accuracy by allowing for customization of holiday data, the holiday data collected from public table. Improving the accuracy of a time series forecast is a well-known, conventional and routine wished for business benefit (no one wants an inaccurate forecast). Nothing in this paragraph discloses or discussed at any level of technical solution to a technical problem, nor does this paragraph disclose an improvement in any of the underlying technology (e.g. processor, memory, etc.), nor does this paragraph disclose an improvement in another technical field. More specifically, this paragraph like the remainder of Applicant’s disclose fails to disclose the argued ‘technical’ improvement of reducing processing cost or reducing memory usage.
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 20, this paragraph discloses that that invention can set days within a holiday impact window as missing values that are filled in using loss interpolation techniques (a well-known, conventional and routine mathematical operation for filling in missing values). Nothing in this paragraph discloses or discussed at any level of technical solution to a technical problem, nor does this paragraph disclose an improvement in any of the underlying technology (e.g. processor, memory, etc.), nor does this paragraph disclose an improvement in another technical field. More specifically, this paragraph like the remainder of Applicant’s disclose fails to disclose the argued ‘technical’ improvement of reducing processing cost or reducing memory usage.
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 21, this paragraph discloses calculating a holiday effect by taking a difference between the time series and deholidayed time series and comparing it to a threshold as not all holidays have a meaningful impact on a forecast. Nothing in this paragraph discloses or discussed at any level of technical solution to a technical problem, nor does this paragraph disclose an improvement in any of the underlying technology (e.g. processor, memory, etc.), nor does this paragraph disclose an improvement in another technical field. More specifically, this paragraph like the remainder of Applicant’s disclose fails to disclose the argued ‘technical’ improvement of reducing processing cost or reducing memory usage.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-5, 6-8, 10-14, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 11 and 20, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of time series forecasting. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, time series forecasting (Title: Holiday Modeling in Forecasting) (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to performing a forecast on time series data using one or more models, wherein time series forecasting is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. Further all of the steps of “receiving”, “generating”, “determining”, “generating”, “performing”, “forecasting”, “forecasting” and “combining” recite functions of the time series forecasting are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The steps of generating deholidayed series data, determining one or more holiday effects…based on a difference and generating a plurality of for performing forecasts and performing the forecast are also directed to an abstract idea because it is a mathematical concept. The intended purpose of independent claims 1, 11, and 20 appears to be to forecast time series data.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The exceptions are the additional limitations of generic computer elements: processor, storage device, computer readable medium storing instructions.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: processor, storage device, computer readable medium storing instructions. These generic computing components are merely used to receive and process data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 2; Paragraphs 61, 62, 66, 67). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's time series forecasting in the general field of business management/marketing and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims on merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)¬ (h)), claims 1-5, 6-8, 10-14, 16, 17 and 20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited processor, storage device, computer readable medium storing instructions," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing, that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of generating deholidayed series data, determining one or more holiday effects for the data, generating one or more models, performing the forecast, forecasting the deholidayed series, forecasting the holiday effects and combining the first/second forecasting all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a processor, storage device, computer readable medium storing instructions nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic processor, storage device, computer readable medium storing instructions are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of receiving and processing data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the receiving step that was considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-5, 6-8, 10, 13-14, 16, and 17, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of time series forecasting and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1, 11 and 20.
Claim 2 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the holidays to at least ONE of unique holidays or region-specific holidays (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 3 and 12 further limit the abstract idea by verifying the forecast using a public table or table valued function (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 4 and 13 further limit the abstract idea by training the one or more models to account for holiday effects when performing forecasts (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 5 and 14 further limits the abstract idea further comprising selecting a model to perform the forecast (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 7 and 16 further limit the by limiting the holiday impact window to a day before, one or more day before or a day after the holiday (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 8 and 17 further limit the abstract idea by employing loss interpolation on missing values in the time series data (mathematical operation/concept; a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 10 and 19 further limit the abstract idea by performing at least ONE of loss smoothing or double exponential smoothing for each holiday impact when the difference is greater than a threshold (mathematical operation/concept; a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding claims 1-5, 6-8, 10-14, 16, 17 and 20, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a processor, storage device, computer readable medium storing instructions at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 2; Paragraphs 61, 62, 66, 67). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. memory, processor, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a processor, storage device, computer readable medium storing instructionss merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figures 13, 14). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Makhija et al., U.S. Patent No. 12008497 discloses the well-known use of ensemble forecasting (combining two or more forecasts into a single forecast) including taking into account holidays (DETX 70, Claim 7).
Jackson et al., U.S. Patent No. 8631040 discloses a forecasting system and method including defining/selecting irregular time intervals for forecasting trends including taken in to account seasons and holidays having defined/specified intervals (DETX 32; Figure 1)
Zhang et al., U.S. Patent No. 11775936 discloses a forecasting system and method comprising training a plurality of machine learning forecasting models to account for 'floating'/indefinite duration holidays/events (DETX 10-14).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights