DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
[2] This communication is in response to the patent application filed 17 July 2024. It is noted that this application benefits from Provisional Patent Application Serial Nos. 63/514,040 and 63/515,286 filed 17 July 2023 and 24 July 2023. The Information Disclosure Statements IDS filed 29 January 2025 and 20 November 2024 have been entered and considered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
[3] Claims 2-4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 2-4 and 19 recite steps/functions in which a set of mitigation tasks results in “GHG mitigation with confidence level of 99%”. The Specification provides instance in which sets of tasks are concluded to produce mitigation within a percent confidence including 99%. However, the Specification does not appear to provide an instance in which sets of tasks and alternative tasks reduce GHG with a 99% confidence. Accordingly, one or ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the invention to determine that alternative sets of tasks would produce a desired GHG mitigation with 99% confidence absent significant and undue experimentation (See MPEP 2164.06). For purposes of further examination, Examiner assumes that sets o practices and tasks are implemented with an intention of improving GHG mitigation strategies.
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.
[4] Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05) Claim(s) 1-20 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1, 18, and 20 are directed to a method, a system, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively, and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1, 18, and 20 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of assessing greenhouse gas mitigation processes, which is reasonably considered to be method consisting of ineligible processes/functions which are performable by Human Mental Processing and/or or by a human using pen and paper (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The courts have previously identified subject matter limited to steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper to be ineligible abstract ideas (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Lastly, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 1 recites:
“…generating a greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation credit comprising identifying a set of tasks to be completed by a respective set of first entities that collectively generate a GHG mitigation having a set of GHG mitigation parameters; receiving, from a second entity, a request for a GHG credit acquisition for the GHG mitigation credit; in response to receiving the request, executing the request for the GHG credit acquisition and providing the GHG mitigation credit to the second entity; and providing, to at least one of the set of first entities, instructions to cause the at least one of the set of first entities to execute a respective task of the set of tasks…”
Respectfully, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily be relied upon to evaluate the potential impact for a set of GHG mitigations techniques using pen and paper and/or employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
Claims 1, 19, and 20 recite technical elements which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claim 1 does not include/recite any additional technical elements. Claims 18 and 20, directed to a system and CRM introduce a “one or more computers” and processor-executable “instructions” as engaged in a general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions. With respect to these potential additional elements:
(1) The “one or more computers” and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: (1) There are no additional elements in the claim; (2) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere 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(f); (3) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g); and/or (4) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., generating a credit, generating tasks intended to mitigate greenhouse gases) as associated with a respective “computer” or “instructions”. A recitation of “by a computer” or “using instructions”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., assessing greenhouse gas mitigation processes) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of assessing greenhouse gas mitigation processes using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed assessing greenhouse gas mitigation processes benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0187]-[0197]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “one or more computers” and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data.
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of assessing greenhouse gas mitigation processes. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., assessing greenhouse gas mitigation processes, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of assessing greenhouse gas mitigation processes benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claims 18 and 20, directed to an apparatus/system and computer-executable instructions stored on computer-readable media for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 1-17 and 19, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In accordance with all relevant considerations and aligned with previous findings of the courts, the technical elements imparted on the method that would potentially provide a basis for meeting a “significantly more” threshold for establishing patent eligibility for an otherwise abstract concept by the use of computer technology fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
[5] Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oliver Gomila (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0114562 hereinafter ‘Oliver Gomila’).
With respect to claim 1, Oliver Gomila discloses a method comprising: generating a greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation credit comprising identifying a set of tasks to be completed by a respective set of first entities that collectively generate a GHG mitigation having a set of GHG mitigation parameters (Oliver Gomila et al.; paragraphs [0005] [0006] [0027] [0028]; See at least carbon offset purchase including activities associated with the credit offset to validate GHG emissions lower than the baseline associated with the credits); receiving, from a second entity, a request for a GHG credit acquisition for the GHG mitigation credit (Oliver Gomila et al.; paragraphs [0027] [0028]; See at least purchase carbon offset credit); in response to receiving the request, executing the request for the GHG credit acquisition and providing the GHG mitigation credit to the second entity (Oliver Gomila et al.; paragraphs [0041] [0042]; See at least activities and carbon credit transferred to purchasing entity); and providing, to at least one of the set of first entities, instructions to cause the at least one of the set of first entities to execute a respective task of the set of tasks (Oliver Gomila et al.; paragraphs [0041] [0042]; See at least activities and carbon credit transferred to purchasing entity).
With respect to claim 2, Oliver Gomila discloses a method wherein generating the set of tasks comprises determining that the set of tasks will result in GHG mitigation with a confidence level of 99% (Oliver Gomila et al.; paragraphs [0047] [0068]-[0070]; See at least verified activities compared to baseline emission to evaluate whether purchaser adhered to activities/tasks to result in emissions below baseline. See further alternative activities determined/estimated to reduce emissions below baseline associated with the carbon offset purchase. *See interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above).
With respect to claim 3, Oliver Gomila discloses a method further comprising: after executing the request for the GHG credit acquisition, receiving data indicative of the set of tasks; and determining, based on the data, whether the set of tasks will still result in the GHG mitigation with a confidence level of 99% (Oliver Gomila et al.; paragraphs [0047] [0068]-[0070]; See at least verified activities compared to baseline emission to evaluate whether purchaser adhered to activities/tasks to result in emissions below baseline. See further alternative activities determined/estimated to reduce emissions below baseline associated with the carbon offset purchase. *See interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above).
With respect to claim 4, Oliver Gomila discloses a method wherein, in response to determining that set of the tasks will no longer result in the GHG mitigation with the confidence level of 99%, one task in the set of tasks (Oliver Gomila et al.; paragraphs [0047] [0068]-[0070]; See at least verified activities compared to baseline emission to evaluate whether purchaser adhered to activities/tasks to result in emissions below baseline. See further alternative activities determined/estimated to reduce emissions below baseline associated with the carbon offset purchase. *See interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above).
With respect to claim 5, Oliver Gomila discloses a method wherein each task comprises an offset potential and one or more failure mechanisms, and wherein the set comprises a metric, and wherein identifying a set of tasks comprises: determining, by a model and based on multiple data types from a plurality of sources, that an overall risk score of the set exceeds a first failure threshold due to a risk score of a task exceeding a second threshold; selecting, by the model, a replacement task for the task comprising: receiving, a plurality of replacement candidates, each replacement candidate comprising a candidate offset potential and one or more candidate failure mechanisms; assigning, to each of the plurality of replacement candidates, a replacement score for the replacement candidate based on a failure correlation of the replacement candidate with respect to each other sets of the set of tasks; ranking the plurality of replacement candidates based on the replacement scores; and selecting, based on the ranking, the replacement task; and generating, an updated set of tasks including the replacement task (Oliver Gomila et al.; paragraphs [0047] [0068]-[0070]; See at least verified activities compared to baseline emission to evaluate whether purchaser adhered to activities/tasks to result in emissions below baseline. See further alternative activities determined/estimated to reduce emissions below baseline associated with the carbon offset purchase. *See interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above).
With respect to claim 6, Oliver Gomila discloses a method wherein the GHG mitigation comprises a mitigation value, a timeframe for completion, and a permanence timeframe (Oliver Gomila et al.; paragraphs [0050] [0051]; See at least activities and adjustments within time period).
With respect to claim 7, Oliver Gomila discloses a method further comprising determining a value of the GHG credit acquisition request based on at least one of the mitigation value, the timeframe for completion, and the permanence timeframe (Oliver Gomila et al.; paragraphs [0050] [0051]; See at least activities and adjustments within time period).
With respect to claim 8, Oliver Gomila discloses a method wherein the set of tasks include at least one of historical tasks, on-going tasks, and future scheduled tasks (Oliver Gomila et al.; paragraphs [0050] [0051]; See at least activities and assessment of impact).
With respect to claim 9, Oliver Gomila discloses a method further comprising: determining an adjustment to a particular task of the set of tasks that results in an increase in the GHG mitigation; and providing, based on the adjustment, a message to the at least one of the set of the first entities (Oliver Gomila et al.; paragraphs [0050] [0051]; See at least activities and assessment of impact).
With respect to claim 10, Oliver Gomila discloses a method further comprising: receiving, from a third entity, a request to modify the set of tasks; and in response to receiving the request, determining to modify the set of tasks according to the request (Oliver Gomila et al.; paragraphs [0047] [0068]-[0070]; See at least verified activities compared to baseline emission to evaluate whether purchaser adhered to activities/tasks to result in emissions below baseline. See further alternative activities determined/estimated to reduce emissions below baseline associated with the carbon offset purchase).
With respect to claim 11, Oliver Gomila discloses a method further comprising: receiving, from a third entity, a request to evaluate an accuracy of a GHG mitigation claim; and in response to the request to evaluate the accuracy of the GHG mitigation claim, determining whether the GHG mitigation claim of the third entity is accurate within an accuracy threshold (Oliver Gomila et al.; paragraphs [0047] [0048]; See at least verification system and third-party verification).
With respect to claim 12, Oliver Gomila discloses a method wherein the set comprises an associated threshold corresponding to costs for updating the set, and further comprising determining a value for the associated threshold (Oliver Gomila et al.; paragraphs [0050] [0051]; See at least activities and assessment of impact).
With respect to claim 13, Oliver Gomila discloses a method further comprising: receiving, from a third entity, a request to resell the GHG mitigation; and in response to receiving the request, determining to repurchase the GHG mitigation (Oliver Gomila et al.; paragraphs [0048] [0068]; See at least carbon credits transferrable on market).
With respect to claim 14, Oliver Gomila discloses a method further comprising: receiving, from a third entity, a request to resell the GHG mitigation; and in response to receiving the request, determining to not repurchase the GHG mitigation (Oliver Gomila et al.; paragraphs [0048] [0068]; See at least carbon credits transferrable on market).
With respect to claim 15, Oliver Gomila discloses a method further comprising reselling the GHG mitigation to a fourth entity (Oliver Gomila et al.; paragraphs [0048] [0068]; See at least carbon credits transferrable on market).
With respect to claim 16, Oliver Gomila discloses a method wherein generating the set of tasks comprises using an algorithm, and further comprising: receiving new data indicating a status of the set of tasks; and in response to receiving the new data, updating the algorithm using the new data (Oliver Gomila et al.; paragraphs [0050] [0051]; See at least activities and assessment of impact).
With respect to claim 17, Oliver Gomila discloses a method wherein the set of tasks comprises at least one of nature-based carbon capture, artificial carbon capture, carbon sequestration, and avoidance of carbon emissions (Oliver Gomila et al.; paragraphs [0048] [0068]; See at least verified tasks including avoidance of carbon emissions).
Claims 18-20 substantially repeat the subject matter addressed above with respect to claims 1-2 as directed to the enabling system and computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions. With respect to these elements, Oliver Gomila disclose enabling the disclosed method employing analogous systems and executable instructions. Accordingly, claims 18-20 are rejected under the applied teachings, conclusions obviousness, and rationale to modify as discussed above with respect to claims 1-2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth V 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights