DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970);and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 remain rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,073,383. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are directed to a similar subject matter contained in claims 1-17 of the '383 patent. The only difference between the instant application and the '383 patent is merely a labeling difference. It is noted that all the features of claims 1-20 are contained in claims 1-17 of the '383 patent.
Arguments and Responses to the 35 USC 101 rejection:
Applicant’s representative argues the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Applicant’s representative further states “As evidenced by the several examples of the enumerated sub-groupings of "organizing human activity" provided above, Applicant submits that claim 1 does not recite any of the "certain methods of organizing human activity" defined in the MPEP, and more specifically does not recite steps for managing commercial or legal interactions or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Instead, claim 1 relates to a method for receipt tracking that allows users to update a record of a receipt by inputting supplementary and/or corrective identifying information associated with the receipt.
In response, it has been clearly enumerated that claims directed to an abstract idea are patent-ineligible. Abstract ideas are characterized as concepts identified by the courts which include (1) mathematical concepts, (2) mental processes and (3) certain methods of organizing human activity.
Among those concepts performed as being identified in the category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” are “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Here, the claimed concept falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106. 04(a}2)UD, because they amount to limitations specifying steps for managing commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people by describing steps involving in correcting an error found in a transaction receipt.
The BRI of these limitations describes steps or functions of receiving, an indication that the first portion of identifying information contains one or more errors and a request to correct the one or more errors, and providing, a second portion of identifying information in response to the request to correct the one or more errors, wherein the second portion of identifying information corrects the one or more errors in the first portion of identifying information.
Therefore the claims recite a commercial or legal interaction as such is an abstract concept.
Each of these independent claims uses generic computer technology (such as a generic mobile device and a computing system) for generating and receiving data or information, and providing the data to a computing system, as such do not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F .3 d 1299, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation").
As such, claims 1, 9 and 16 recite generating and receiving data or information, and providing the data as these functions are not a technological implementation or improvement of a technological field.
Applicant is to be reminded that a system, apparatus, machine or method for performing business, however, novel, useful, or commercially successful, is not patentable apart from the means for making the system practically useful or carrying it out. The applicant is making use of generic devices to finally provide from a user input received via a screen display and to a computing system, a second portion of identifying information in response to the request to correct the one or more errors, wherein the second portion of identifying information corrects the one or more errors in the first portion of identifying information.
Accordingly, the additional elements (such as a generic mobile device and a computing system) do not improve (1) the processor or database and user interface, or (2) another technology or technical field. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Rather, the above-noted additional elements merely (1) apply the abstract idea on a computer; (2) include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (computing device or system) ; or (3) use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading the claims.
None of the steps, functions and/or elements recited in the claims provide, and nowhere in the applicant’s shows any description or explanation as to how the claimed computing device or mobile device are intended to provide: (1) a “solution . . . necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” as explained by the Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014); (2) “a specific improvement to the way computers operate,” as explained in Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336; or (3) an “unconventional technological solution ... to a technological problem” that “improve[s] the performance of the system itself,” as explained in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1299-1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant’s representative then argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant’s representative then states: the steps of claim 1 (and similarly claims 9 and 16) do not amount to "merely using a computer as a tool to perform as abstract idea" as alleged by the Examiner, but rather the claims amount to an improvement to "the functioning of a computer or [an] improve[ment] [to] another technology or technical field" as outlined in the MPEP.
In response, the claims as now amended still fail to recite technological implementation details of how the claimed functions are being realized. Claims of this nature are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101." Beteiro, LLC V. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The specification does not even provide details of a specific architecture or means or structures or specific computer executed modules for performing the claimed functions. Taken claim 1 as an example, Claim 1 now recites an improvement to the business of:
A method for receipt tracking performed by a mobile device having a mobile wallet application, the method comprising:
receiving, by the mobile device from a computing system associated with the mobile wallet application, a receipt corresponding to a transaction performed by the mobile device;
extracting, by the mobile device, a first portion of identifying information from the receipt;
generating, by the mobile device, a screen display comprising the first portion of identifying information;
receiving, by the mobile device from the computing system, an indication that the first portion of identifying information contains one or more errors and a request to correct the one or more errors;
providing, by the mobile device to the computing system and from a user input received via the screen display, a second portion of identifying information in response to the request to correct the one or more errors, wherein the second portion of identifying information corrects the one or more errors in the first portion of identifying information; and
associating, by the mobile device based on the first portion and the second portion of identifying information, the receipt with a record stored in a transaction database.
The claims "do[es] not improve the functioning of the computing system or mobile device or make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem." Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. V. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019). "Nothing in the claim[s], understood in light of the specification, calls for anything but preexisting computers and displays, programmed using techniques known to skilled artisans, to present the new arrangement of information." Brumfield V. IBG LLC, 97 F Ath 854, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The claims also do not show a technical improvement in the architecture of a processor using a computing logic of the computing system or the mobile device. The recited functions involve generic or conventional functions and setup of a basic computer system.
The mere recitation of a generic computing system and a mobile device performing their expected functions cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention as stated in Alice Corp., 134S.Ct. at 2358; DDR Holdings, LLC V. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cri. 2014) ("And after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible. (citation omitted)). Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to 'implement' an abstract idea 'on a computer', that addition cannot impart patent eligibility." Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (internal citation omitted). The claimed computing system and mobile device are merely a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Each of the independent claims uses generic computer technology (such as a generic computing system and mobile device) for generating and receiving data or information, and providing the data to a computing system as such do not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F .3 d 1299, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation").
The claims are void of anything significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant’s representative then argues that under the Revised Step 2B Analysis: “Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite features which are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field”.
In response, the cited prior art as noted, comprises a computing system and a mobile device for performing the claimed invention.
The reliance of a computer or computing system or mobile device to perform its routine tasks even more accurately is not sufficient to transform a claim into patent eligible subject matter as noted in Alice 134 S. Ct. at 2359. As indicated by the court "use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions and issue simultaneous instructions" was not an inventive incept. The claims or even the applicant's specification does not support or provide or claim any specifically inventive technology or algorithm for performing the claimed functions.
As noted in the applicant’s specification, there is not a specific structure or computer components to perform the claimed functions. The generic computing system and mobile device can be any known server or computer processor or software or hardware components. However, there is not a specific or new algorithm noted in the applicant’s specification to generate the claimed functions. The claimed computing system or mobile device noted in the applicant's specification are routine computer processors or computers performing generic computer functions.
Furthermore., there is not a showing or description of generating and receiving data or information, and providing the data to a computing system to effect specific improvements to the computing system or mobile. Furthermore there is a lacking of evidence that the claims improve the manner in which the computing system or mobile device generates and receives data or information, and provides data to the computing system, as the claims in Enfish had performed their claimed invention via a “self-referential table” for a computer database. Applicant is being referred to Enfish, 822, F.3d at 1327, 1337.
The instant claims merely generate and receive data or information, and provide the data to a computing system. These are routine and generic computer functions for processing or effecting the abstract idea. Hence, there is not a significant improvement of the computing system or mobile device or the architecture of the overall system.
The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, are merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claims 1 and 16 are directed to a method. Claim 9 is directed to a system. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong One: the claims recite the following limitations that are understood to recite an abstract idea absent the bolded limitations:
Claim 1 recites:
A method for receipt tracking performed by a mobile device having a mobile wallet application, the method comprising:
receiving, by the mobile device from a computing system associated with the mobile wallet application, a receipt corresponding to a transaction performed by the mobile device;
extracting, by the mobile device, a first portion of identifying information from the receipt;
generating, by the mobile device, a screen display comprising the first portion of identifying information;
receiving, by the mobile device from the computing system, an indication that the first portion of identifying information contains one or more errors and a request to correct the one or more errors;
providing, by the mobile device to the computing system and from a user input received via the screen display, a second portion of identifying information in response to the request to correct the one or more errors, wherein the second portion of identifying information corrects the one or more errors in the first portion of identifying information; and
associating, by the mobile device based on the first portion and the second portion of identifying information, the receipt with a record stored in a transaction database.
Claim 2 recites: wherein providing the second portion of identifying information further comprises automatically correcting the one or more errors in the screen display of the first portion of identifying information with the second portion of identifying information.
Claim 3 recites: wherein the indication that the first portion of identifying information contains the one or more errors comprises a determination that the first portion of identifying information includes less than a minimum required amount of identifying information, and wherein the second portion of identifying information is provided such that the second portion of identifying information and the first portion of identifying information equal or exceed the minimum required amount of identifying information.
Claim 4 recites: wherein the method further comprises authenticating a user of the mobile device, and wherein the user has a user account associated with the mobile wallet application.
Claim 5 recites: wherein receiving the receipt comprises retrieving, by the mobile device from the computing system, a transaction history comprising a plurality of transactions associated with the user account, wherein each of the plurality of transactions corresponds to each of a plurality of receipts.
Claim 6 recites: wherein the method further comprises aggregating, by the mobile device, the transaction history to generate a profile associated with the user account, wherein the profile is indicative of a purchasing pattern of the user.
Claim 7 recites: wherein the user input is received via the screen display as at least one of a text input, a voice input, or an image input.
Claim 8 recites: wherein receiving the receipt comprises receiving a digital scan of a paper receipt.
Claim 9 recites: A computing system comprising at least one processing circuit storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, causes the at least one processing circuit to:
receive a receipt corresponding to a transaction;
extract a first portion of identifying information from the receipt;
generate a screen display comprising a first portion of identifying information;
receive an indication that the first portion of identifying information contains one or more errors and a request to correct the one or more errors;
provide, from a user input received via the screen display and to an institution computer system, a second portion of identifying information in response to the request to correct the one or more errors, wherein the second portion of identifying information corrects the one or more errors in the first portion of identifying information;
associate, based on the first portion and the second portion of identifying information, the receipt with a record stored in a transaction database.
Claim 10 recites: instructions when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processing circuit to automatically correct the one or more errors in the screen display of the first portion of identifying information with the second portion of identifying information.
Claim 11 recites: wherein the indication that the first portion of identifying information contains the one or more errors comprises a determination that the first portion of identifying information includes less than a minimum required amount of identifying information, and wherein the second portion of identifying information is provided such that the second portion of identifying information and the first portion of identifying information equal or exceed the minimum required amount of identifying information.
Claim 12 recites: wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processing circuit to:
authenticate a user of the computing system, wherein the user has a user account; and
retrieve a transaction history comprising a plurality of transactions associated with the user account, wherein each of the plurality of transactions corresponds to each of a plurality of receipts.
Claim 13 recites: wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processing circuit to aggregate the transaction history to generate a profile associated with the user account, wherein the profile is indicative of a purchasing pattern of the user.
Claim 14 recites: wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processing circuit to populate the profile with text, voice, photographic, or video data regarding the receipt.
Claim 15 recites: wherein receiving the receipt comprises receiving a digital scan of a paper receipt.
Claim 16 recites: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause operations comprising:
receiving a receipt corresponding to a transaction associated with a user;
extracting a first portion of identifying information from the receipt;
generating a screen display comprising a first portion of identifying information;
receiving an indication that the first portion of identifying information contains one or more errors;
providing a prompt to request to correct the one or more errors;
providing, from a user input received via the screen display and to a computing system, a second portion of identifying information in response to the request to correct the one or more errors, wherein the second portion of identifying information corrects the one or more errors in the first portion of identifying information; and
associating, based on the first portion and the second portion of identifying information, the receipt with a record stored in a transaction database.
Claim 17 recites: wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause operations comprising automatically correcting the one or more errors in the screen display of the first portion of identifying information with the second portion of identifying information.
Claim 18 recites: wherein the indication that the first portion of identifying information contains the one or more errors comprises a determination that the first portion of identifying information includes less than a minimum required amount of identifying information, and wherein the second portion of identifying information is provided such that the second portion of identifying information and the first portion of identifying information equal or exceed the minimum required amount of identifying information.
Claim 19 recites: wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
authenticating the user, wherein the user has a user account; and
retrieving a transaction history comprising a plurality of transactions associated with the user account, wherein each of the plurality of transactions corresponds to each of a plurality of receipts.
Claim 20 recites: wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
aggregating the transaction history to generate a profile associated with the user account, wherein the profile is indicative of a purchasing pattern of the user; and
populating the profile with text, voice, photographic, or video data regarding the receipt.
In removing the bolded additional elements, it is noted that the remaining limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, also fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106. 04(a}2)UD, because they amount to limitations specifying steps for managing commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people by describing steps involving in correcting an error found in a transaction receipt.
The BRI of these limitations describes steps or functions of receiving, an indication that the first portion of identifying information contains one or more errors and a request to correct the one or more errors, and providing, a second portion of identifying information in response to the request to correct the one or more errors, wherein the second portion of identifying information corrects the one or more errors in the first portion of identifying information.
Therefore the claims recite a commercial or legal interaction as such is an abstract concept.
Step 2A, Prong two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the above noted bolded limitations understood to be the additional limitations.
These limitations performing steps or functions by a mobile device with a mobile wallet in communication (receiving and providing data to/from a computing system). The steps or functions of receiving, generating and providing as recited in at least the independent claims merely amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f), also see applicant's specification for guiding interpretation of these claim features, describing implementation with generic commercially available devices or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions.
The mobile device in communication with the computer device is similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate between systems.
Performance of a receiving step by a computer processor or mobile device amounts to performing steps or functions which amount io insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Performing steps by computer processor hardware with electronic data or messages merely limit the abstraction to computer field by execution by generic computers - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
While the claims do not specify any particular manner of receiving, generating and providing, the breadth of the limitations reasonably includes collecting receipt data or information by communicating between a mobile device and a computer system.
Reciting data by a mobile device and a computing system is understood to be similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(I), is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims in the instant application are performed by one mobile device which receives data from a computing system and a computing system provides user input to correct errors in a portion information as was extracted from the receipt.
Consideration of these steps or functions as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of providing a user to make corrections on a receipt of a transaction,
and performance of these steps or functions technologically does present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim which would reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application. ,
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis. Requesting and receiving information by computer hardware amounts to receiving and transmitting information over a network has been recognized by the courts as well- understood, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, 835 F.3d at 1321, 120 OSPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL Communications LEC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, G10, L18 USPO2d 1744, 1748 (ed. Cir.
2016) Casing a telephone for image transmission); OFF Techs., fac. v. Amazon.com, fic., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPO2d 1090, 1093 (ed, Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), buySAFE fic. v. Google, Inc.. 768 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1996 (Pod, Cyr. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
Independent claims 9 and 16 recite similar limitations as claim 1. The same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 are equally applicable to claims 9 and 16.
Positively reciting a computing system and mobile device does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
The claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. These claimed elements are noted to a be a generic computer for collecting and receiving data, generating and providing data and performing routine and conventional functions.
These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer,
Accordingly, the additional 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 claimed elements are also seen as generic computer components for receiving data, generating data and providing data without an inventive concept as they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claimed additional elements are interpreted as being recited at a high level of generality and even if the claims recited in the affirmative.
The type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or renders the idea less abstract. Looking at the elements as a combination, the elements do not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claims do not amount to a significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant is reminded that a statutory claim would recite an automated machine implemented method or system with specific structures for performing the claimed invention so as to provide an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
January 23, 2026