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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on July 17, 2024 and claims filed October 31, 2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for GB1808997.9 dated June 1, 2018 found in the parent application, U.S. App. No. 15/733,845.
Additionally, Examiner acknowledges priority to U.S. App. No. 15/733,845 dated November 30, 2020 and PCT/GB2019/051525 dated May 31, 23019.
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. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 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); 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) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 3, 4, 14, 14, 1, 1, 8, 1, 19, 20, 22, 23, 5, 19, and 19, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,066,291. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the recited instant claims is fully encompassed by the corresponding respective claim from U.S. Patent No. 12,066,291.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: While manoeuvre is an accepted spelling of the term in some parts of the world, Examiner requests that Applicant update the term to recite the accepted spelling for the United States of America, “maneuver.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a. a calculation module… in claims 1 and 5. Structure for this limitation may be found at least at p. 10 and Fig. 2 of the instant specification: processor, memory, and claimed software;
b. a location module… in claim 4. Structure for this limitation may be found at least at p. 10 and Fig. 2 of the instant specification: processor, memory, and claimed software.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 is directed toward a system, claim 13 is directed toward a method, and claim 20 is directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1, 13, and 20 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, the independent claims 1, 13, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 13 is used for illustration:
A positional guidance method for a sailing boat, the method including:
calculating, with a calculating module, a predicted boat location for a bearing associated with a predetermined route to a destination, wherein the calculation is based on a target time indicative of the time remaining for the sailing boat to arrive at a destination and an optimum boat speed based on input data (a person may mentally determine calculations based on a bearing associated with a predetermined route to a destination, a target time, and an optimum boat speed);
recalculating the predicted boat location for a new target time such that the predicted boat location is periodically updated (a person may mentally recalculate the previous determination after a period of time);
defining, with a processor, a boundary defined at least in part by the predicted boat location (a person may mentally define a boundary); and
displaying, with a display, a visual representation of the boundary (this is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, and the display is considered a generic computer component).
As explained above, independent claim 13 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims 1 and 20, which are of similar scope to claim 13, likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In this case, the mental processes judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For example, independent claims 1, 13, and 20 recite the additional elements of calculation module…, processor…, display…, displaying…, and non-transitory computer-readable medium…. These limitations amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, add insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally link use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d). More specifically,
a. calculation module… found in independent claim 1. This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer;
b. processor… found in independent claims 1, 13, and 20. This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer;
c. display… found in independent claim 1, 13, and 20. This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer;
d. displaying… found in independent claim 13. This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity;
e. non-transitory computer-readable medium… found in independent claim 20. This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Because the additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, independent claims 1, 13, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea and, therefore, does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, as discussed above, the limitation of displaying…, as recited above, is considered insignificant extra solution activities.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitations of displaying… is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, because they have all been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g):
a. displaying… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1, 13, and 20 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 2-12 and 14-19 are patent ineligible. Therefore, claims 1-20 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner encourages Applicant to look to the parent application, App. No. 15/733,845 and/or to set an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0091318 (hereinafter, “Silfven”).
Regarding claim 1, Silfven discloses A positional guidance system for a sailing boat (see at least [0024] and [0029]) comprising:
a calculation module configured to calculate a predicted boat location for a bearing associated with a predetermined route to a destination, wherein the calculation is based on a target time indicative of the time remaining for the sailing boat to arrive at a destination and an optimum boat speed based on input data, the calculation module being further configured to recalculate the predicted boat location for a new target time such that the predicted boat location is periodically updated (see at least [0041], [0048]-[0058], [0062], [0075], and [0115]; the processor having software (i.e., calculation module) continually calculates the predicted boat location, bearing, arrival time, speed, and other movement parameters between the boat and destination until the timer expires);
a processor configured to define a boundary defined at least in part by the predicted boat location (see at least Fig. 3A and [0097]; the laylines and guidelines (i.e., boundaries) are defined at least partially based on the boat location); and
a display configured to display a visual representation of the boundary (see at least [0059] and [0063]; the display may include all aspects of Fig. 3A including laylines, guidelines, destination, etc.).
Regarding claim 2, Silfven discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Silfven discloses wherein the display forms part of a computing device, the computing device being a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a personal digital assistant, a mobile telephone, a smartphone, a smart watch or a pair of smart glasses (see at least [0023], Fig. 1, [0029], and [0063]; the display may be part of the navigation device which may be “a mobile computing device (e.g., smartphone, tablet, laptop, phablet, netbook, notebook, pager, personal digital assistant (PDA), wearable computing device, smart glasses, a smart watch or a bracelet, etc.), or any other suitable type of computing device capable of wired and/or wireless communication (e.g., a desktop computer)”).
Regarding claim 3, Silfven discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Silfven discloses wherein the display forms part of an augmented reality system (see at least [0023], Fig. 1, [0029], and [0063]; the display may be part of the navigation device which may be “a mobile computing device (e.g., smartphone, tablet, laptop, phablet, netbook, notebook, pager, personal digital assistant (PDA), wearable computing device, smart glasses, a smart watch or a bracelet, etc.), or any other suitable type of computing device capable of wired and/or wireless communication (e.g., a desktop computer).” Examiner notes that an augmented reality system necessarily includes one or more of the disclosed examples and is therefore anticipated by Silfven).
Regarding claim 4, Silfven discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Silfven discloses further comprising a location module for identifying a current location associated with the sailing boat and wherein the display is further configured to display the current location of the sailing boat (see at least Fig. 1, Element 114, Fig. 2, and [0041]; the location determining component (i.e., the location module) for identifying the current location and displaying the location of the boat).
Regarding claim 5, Silfven discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Silfven discloses wherein the calculation module calculates a predicted boat location for each of a plurality of bearings associated with the predetermined route to the destination (see at least Fig. 3C and [0094]; the predictor line is the predicted boat location along the route to the destination).
Regarding claim 6, Silfven discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, Silfven discloses wherein the boundary is defined by the predicted boat locations associated with each of the plurality of bearings associated with the predetermined route to the destination (see at least Fig. 3C and [0094]; the predictor line is the predicted boat location along the route to the destination, the boundaries are based on the predicted boat location along the route to the destination).
Regarding claim 7, Silfven discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Silfven discloses further comprising sensors for at least partially providing input data, wherein the input data comprises wind data and/or boat speed data (see at least [0035] and [0082]; wind data is included for navigational purposes).
Regarding claim 8, Silfven discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Silfven discloses wherein the predicted boat location is calculated based on known route parameters associated with the predetermined route, wherein the known route parameters include one or more scaling parameters, route curvature parameters and/or acceleration or deceleration parameters (see at least [0041], [0048]-[0058], [0062], [0074]-[0075], and [0115]; the processor having software (i.e., calculation module) continually calculates the predicted boat location, bearing, arrival time, speed, and other movement parameters between the boat and destination until the timer expires).
Regarding claim 9, Silfven discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Silfven discloses wherein the predetermined route comprises a straight line to the destination (see at least [0074]; the layline along which the route travels is a straight line), and
wherein the predetermined route further comprises a curved path onto a predetermined bearing when approaching the destination (see at least [0084]-[0085]; the tacking angle updates based on wind changes causing at least some curves along the route, however minor. Furthermore, the entirety of the route may be considered “approaching the destination”).
Regarding claim 10, Silfven discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Silfven discloses wherein the predetermined route comprises a straight line to a layline associated with the destination and travelling to the destination along the layline (see at least [0074]; the layline along which the route travels is a straight line).
Regarding claim 12, Silfven discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Silfven discloses wherein the predetermined route further comprises a manoeuvre, the manoeuvre including a tack manoeuvre or a gybe manoeuvre, and wherein the display is further configured to display one or more manoeuvre indicia (see at least [0077]-[0078] and [0084]-[0085]; tacking maneuvers to maintain the fastest route to the destination are continuously performed).
Regarding claim 13, Silfven discloses A positional guidance method for a sailing boat (see at least [0024] and [0029]), the method including:
calculating, with a calculating module, a predicted boat location for a bearing associated with a predetermined route to a destination, wherein the calculation is based on a target time indicative of the time remaining for the sailing boat to arrive at a destination and an optimum boat speed based on input data (see at least [0041], [0048]-[0058], [0062], [0075], and [0115]; the processor having software (i.e., calculation module) continually calculates the predicted boat location, bearing, arrival time, speed, and other movement parameters between the boat and destination until the timer expires);
recalculating the predicted boat location for a new target time such that the predicted boat location is periodically updated (see at least [0041], [0048]-[0058], [0062], [0074]-[0075], and [0115]; the processor having software (i.e., calculation module) continually calculates the predicted boat location, bearing, arrival time, speed, and other movement parameters between the boat and destination until the timer expires);
defining, with a processor, a boundary defined at least in part by the predicted boat location (see at least Fig. 3A and [0097]; the laylines and guidelines (i.e., boundaries) are defined at least partially based on the boat location); and
displaying, with a display, a visual representation of the boundary (see at least [0059] and [0063]; the display may include all aspects of Fig. 3A including laylines, guidelines, destination, etc.).
Regarding claim 14, Silfven discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Silfven discloses further comprising calculating the optimum boat speed based on input data, wherein the input data comprises wind data and/or boat speed data (see at least [0035] and [0082]; wind data is included for navigational purposes).
Regarding claim 15, Silfven discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Silfven discloses further comprising displaying, with the display, the current location of the sailing boat (see at least Fig. 1, Element 114, Fig. 2, and [0041]; the location determining component (i.e., the location module) for identifying the current location and displaying the location of the boat).
Regarding claim 16, Silfven discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Silfven discloses wherein calculating the predicted boat location is repeated for each of a plurality of bearings associated with the predetermined route to the destination (see at least [0041], [0048]-[0058], [0062], [0074]-[0075], and [0115]; the processor having software (i.e., calculation module) continually calculates the predicted boat location, bearing, arrival time, speed, and other movement parameters between the boat and destination until the timer expires).
Regarding claim 17, Silfven discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Silfven discloses wherein the input data is obtained by one or more of a sensor, a communication source, or a manual input (see at least [0035] and [0082]; wind data is included for navigational purposes).
Regarding claim 18, Silfven discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Silfven discloses further comprising calculating the predicted boat location based on known route parameters associated with the route, wherein the known route parameters include one or more scaling parameters, route curvature parameters and/or acceleration parameters (see at least [0041], [0048]-[0058], [0062], [0074]-[0075], and [0115]; the processor having software (i.e., calculation module) continually calculates the predicted boat location, bearing, arrival time, speed, and other movement parameters between the boat and destination until the timer expires).
Regarding claim 20, Silfven discloses A non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computing device (see at least [0049]), cause the computing device to at least:
calculate a predicted boat location for a bearing associated with a predetermined route to a destination, wherein the calculation is based on a target time indicative of the time remaining for the sailing boat to arrive at a destination and an optimum boat speed based on input data (see at least [0041], [0048]-[0058], [0062], [0075], and [0115]; the processor having software (i.e., calculation module) continually calculates the predicted boat location, bearing, arrival time, speed, and other movement parameters between the boat and destination until the timer expires);
recalculate the predicted boat location for a new target time such that the predicted boat location is periodically updated (see at least [0041], [0048]-[0058], [0062], [0074]-[0075], and [0115]; the processor having software (i.e., calculation module) continually calculates the predicted boat location, bearing, arrival time, speed, and other movement parameters between the boat and destination until the timer expires);
define a boundary defined at least in part by the predicted boat location (see at least Fig. 3A and [0097]; the laylines and guidelines (i.e., boundaries) are defined at least partially based on the boat location); and
display a visual representation of the boundary (see at least [0059] and [0063]; the display may include all aspects of Fig. 3A including laylines, guidelines, destination, etc.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Each of claims 11 and 19 is objected to as depending from a rejected claim but may be found allowable if re-written in independent form, including all intervening claims, and after the above objections and rejections have been remedied. Applicant is encouraged to look at reasons for allowability for these claims in the parent case, U.S. App. No. 15/733,845. Specific reasons for allowability will be provided when one or more claims is in a state of allowance.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0254910 which pertains to race map tracking using tacking distances and real-time wind maps to determine arrival times and including curves.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666