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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final rejection. Claims 1-16, and 19-22 are pending.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 06/15/2026. Amending claims 1, 10, and 19.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 is updated in light of the amendments.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 103- Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, filed 06/15/2026, with respect to the art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive, the rejection under 35 USC 102/103 has been withdrawn. No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reason found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument received 06/15/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues (Pages 8-9 of the remarks): abstract idea
Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention cannot be grouped as a mental process as alleged in the Office Action. The MPEP defines the mental processes grouping as "concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)." MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). However, the "[c]laims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation." Id. The amended claims require simulating a plurality of scenarios using a Discrete Event Simulation (DES) model of the warehouse that represents a physical layout, assets, and a material flow of the warehouse, where a first scenario corresponds to a first specific set of values of variables associated with the anomaly and a second scenario corresponds to a second specific set of values of variables associated with the anomaly. The human mind is not equipped to construct and execute a DES model that represents the physical layout, assets, and material flow of a warehouse, generate multiple scenarios corresponding to different specific sets of variable values, and then correlate those simulated scenarios with current real-time sensor information received from a plurality of physical sensors to identify an occurring scenario. These steps require continuous, high-speed computational processing of streaming sensor data, execution of a simulation model, and pattern matching across multiple scenarios that are fundamentally beyond human cognitive capabilities.
Additionally, the claim requires automatically generating a work order based on the recommendations, which is a machine-driven action that cannot be performed mentally.
Accordingly, the claims do not recite a judicial exception and thus do not recite an abstract idea as alleged in the Office Action.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Independent Claims 1, similar steps likewise reflect in claims 10 and 19, the claims, when “taken as a whole,” are directed to the abstract idea.
The Applicant's Specification titled "SYSTEM AND METHOD OF MANAGING OPERATIONS IN A WAREHOUSE" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue and notify an operator about the one or more recommendation" ([005] of the specification).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recites the abstract idea of systems for determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue and notify an operator about the one or more recommendation. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business offer for determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue and notify an operator about the one or more recommendation. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite systems for determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue and notify an operator about the one or more recommendation. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. Also, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claimed invention also pertains to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under mental processes because the claims recite determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue based on different information received related to an event and notifying an operator about the one or more recommendation. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant argues (Pages 14-15 of the remarks): prong two
Here, the amended claims use the output of the simulation and correlation - the identified occurring scenario and the recommendations derived therefrom – to automatically generate a work order that initiates corrective action to mitigate the anomaly's effect on the physical warehouse operations. Accordingly, the claims as a whole integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application of real-time warehouse operational management.
Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea, as alleged in the Office Action), and even assuming arguendo that the Examiner finds that claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, Applicant submits that the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recites the additional limitation of a non-transitory computer-readable medium system, memory, sensors, processor, DES model, model, a device are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The use of generic computer component to “generating a notification to a user” does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
Applicant argues (Pages 16-17 of the remarks): step 2B
Applicant submits that even if assuming, arguendo, the claimed invention was deemed directed to the abstract idea alleged in the Office Action, the specific claim elements recited would constitute "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea such that the claimed invention recites an "inventive concept" over the alleged abstract idea. Under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, the examiner should evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept, i.e., whether the claimed invention recites significantly more than the judicial exception to which it is directed.
…
As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the Step 2B analysis demonstrates that the claimed invention is significantly more than any alleged abstract idea and eligible for patenting. Withdrawal of the rejections are respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, 10 and 19 does not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. Claims 1, 10 and 19 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include a non-transitory computer-readable medium system, memory, sensors, processor, DES model, model, a device.
Examiner asserts that the additional elements in the claims are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions.
Further, with data mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data) the courts have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.059d)).
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
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 1-16, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 1-9, and 21-22 are directed to a method (process) and claims 10-16 are directed to a system (machine), claims 19-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (machine). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-16, and 19-22 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Independent claims 10 and 19 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract ideas for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A method of managing operations in a warehouse, the method comprising:
receiving, from a plurality sensors installed at one or more locations in the warehouse, sensor information related to events occurring within the warehouse in a real-time, wherein the events are associated with performance of assets responsible for movement of articles at one or more locations in the warehouse, wherein the process model defines upstream and downstream relationships between the one or more assets, and metrics and attributes associated with the one or more assets;
mapping, by a processor, the sensor information with one or more assets present in the warehouse, using a process model of the warehouse;
identifying, by the processor, at least one anomaly in an event, based on violation of predefined limits set for the sensor information related to the event;
simulating, by the processor, a plurality of scenarios using a Discrete Event Simulation (DES) model of the warehouse, based on the sensor information, to identify effect of the at least one anomaly on the movement of the articles, wherein the DES model represents a physical layout, assets, and a material flow of the warehouse, wherein a first scenario of the plurality of scenarios corresponds to a first specific set of values of variables associated with the anomaly and a second specific set of values of variables associated with the anomaly, and said plurality of scenarios includes at least an optimal scenario or a bottleneck scenario;
correlation, by the processor, the plurality of scenarios with the current real-time sensor information received from the plurality of sensors to identify an occurring scenario;
determining one or more recommendations based on identified occurring scenario for mitigating the effect of the at least one anomaly, wherein the plurality of scenarios is simulated by referring to a knowledge base; and
automatically generating, by the processor, a work order based on the one or more recommendations for mitigating the effect of the at least one anomaly;
automatically transmitting, by the processor, a notification to a user device associated with an operator about the one or more recommendations.
The Applicant's Specification titled "SYSTEM AND METHOD OF MANAGING OPERATIONS IN A WAREHOUSE" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue and notify an operator about the one or more recommendation" ([005] of the specification).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recites the abstract idea of systems for determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue and notify an operator about the one or more recommendation. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business offer for determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue and notify an operator about the one or more recommendation. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite systems for determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue and notify an operator about the one or more recommendation. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. Also, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claimed invention also pertains to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under mental processes because the claims recite determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue based on different information received related to an event and notifying an operator about the one or more recommendation. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 20-22 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 (Similarly claim 11) utilizing workforce information for identifying the anomaly in the event, wherein the workforce information includes details of individuals designated for handling all the events in the warehouse, and the anomaly is associated with shortage or lack of skilled individuals designated for handling the event.
claim 3 (Similarly claim 12) identifying the skilled individuals from the workforce information, based on availability and skill set, for performing one or more tasks specified in the one or more recommendations.
claim 4 (Similarly claim 13) obtained as time-series data or as data blobs.
claim 5 (Similarly claim 14) comprising utilizing historical data for simulating the plurality of scenarios.
Claim 6 (Similarly claim 15) triggering scheduled calculations at predefined time intervals upon receipt of a predefined amount of the sensor information.
claim 7 (Similarly claim 16) comprising allowing the operator to define a mode of communication, warehouse site, frequency, severity, and category of the events for receiving notifications related to anomalies and recommendations.
claim 8 further comprising clustering the sensor information of dependent assets for simulating the plurality of scenarios.
claim 9 further comprising utilizing an output of computation of a higher level event for performing computation of a lower level event associated with the higher level event, for simulating the plurality of scenarios.
claim 20 utilizing workforce information for identifying the anomaly in the event, wherein the workforce information includes details of individuals designated for handling all the events in the warehouse, and the anomaly is associated with shortage or lack of skilled individuals designated for handling the event; and identifying the skilled individuals from the workforce information, based on availability and skill set, for performing one or more tasks specified in the one or more recommendations.
claim 21 assigning, by the processor, an idle resource to a first other area of the warehouse that is impacted by the at least one anomaly based on the work order.
claim 22 identifying, by the processor using the DES model, one or more processes in the warehouse that are dependent on operation of an affected asset, and determining that a capacity of the one or more processes will be reduced if the at least one anomaly is not addressed.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 10 and 19.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-16, and 19-22 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 10 and 19 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1 a sensors, processor, model, a device, and DES model
Claim 10 a system, memory, sensors, processor, model, a device, and DES model
Claim 13 a non-transitory computer-readable medium sensors, processor, model, a device, and DES model
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, 10 and 19 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium system, memory, sensors, , and DES model, processor, model, a device which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, (fig. 1). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, 10, and 19 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
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 which merely pertains to steps of determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue based on different information received related to an event and notifying an operator about the one or more recommendation and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. 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. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention determine one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue based on different information received related to an event and notifying an operator about the one or more recommendation. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. 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 2-9, 11-16, and 20-22 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 10 and 19 respectively, but, these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 10 and 19, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
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 1-16, and 19-22 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of claims 1, 10, and 19 include a non-transitory computer-readable medium system, , and DES model, memory, sensors, processor, model, a device. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue based on different information received related to an event and notifying an operator about the one or more recommendation.
Claims 1-16, and 20-22 are accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, No art rejections has been put forth in the rejection.
The closest prior art of record are Krishnaswamy et al. US 2022/0198565: Management of a portfolio of assets, Arar et al. US 2020/0364646: Automated assignment of tasks based on user profile data for improved efficiency, Zhan, Xuegang, et al. "Industrial internet of things and unsupervised deep learning enabled real-time occupational safety monitoring in cold storage warehouse." Safety science 152 (2022): 105766, Muro et al. US 2024/0103505: Calculation system and calculation method.
None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in independent claims, “simulating, by the processor, a plurality of scenarios using a Discrete Event Simulation (DES) model of the warehouse, based on the sensor information, to identify effect of the at least one anomaly on the movement of the articles, wherein the DES model represents a physical layout, assets, and a material flow of the warehouse, wherein a first scenario of the plurality of scenarios corresponds to a first specific set of values of variables associated with the anomaly and a second specific set of values of variables associated with the anomaly, and said plurality of scenarios includes at least an optimal scenario or a bottleneck scenario;
….
automatically generating, by the processor, a work order based on the one or more recommendations for mitigating the effect of the at least one anomaly; ” The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-16, and 19-22 in the instant application is not apply because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhan, Xuegang, et al. "Industrial internet of things and unsupervised deep learning enabled real-time occupational safety monitoring in cold storage warehouse." Safety science 152 (2022): 105766.
Einav, Omer EP 3154884: Systems and methods for modular storage and management.
Basanez US 2024/0420064: Productivity management system.
Korablev et al. US 2024/0377808: Systems and methods for autonomous anomaly management of an industrial site.
Cella et al. US 2024/0118702: Systems, methods, kits, and apparatuses for managing control towers in value chain networks.
Khurana et al. US 2021/0103260: Multi-site building management system.
Murakami US 2018/0129192: Job planning device and job planning method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights