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 .
Priority
Request for foreign priority is acknowledged. However, the certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have not been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/20/2024 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1 lines 4-5, “substituting and calculating the obtained past observation data into a preset whole water depth mixing discriminant, for a plurality of points in the sea area to be estimated” is insufficiently comprehensible in terms of the actions performed on the “past observation data” with respect to the “whole water depth mixing discriminant” to result in “estimated” “points in the sea area,” such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of invention with reasonable certainty. Based on apparent intent, “substituting and calculating the obtained past observation data into a preset whole water depth mixing discriminant, for a plurality of points in the sea area to be estimated” is interpreted as “substituting the obtained past observation data into a preset whole water depth mixing discriminant to calculate a plurality of estimated points in the sea area.”
Independent claim 5 includes substantially similar language as that which renders claim 1 indefinite and is likewise rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and are likewise also rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention in each of these claims is directed to the abstract idea judicial exception without significantly more.
Independent claim 5, substantially representative also of claim 1, recites:
“[a]n apparatus for estimating a tidal front, comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions,
wherein the instructions perform a method of estimating a tidal front comprising:
obtaining past observation data of a sea area to be estimated;
substituting and calculating the obtained past observation data into a preset whole water depth mixing discriminant, for a plurality of points in the sea area to be estimated; and
as a result of the calculation, regarding an area of points where a calculated value is less than or equal to a preset reference value as a whole water depth mixing sea area, regarding an area of points where the calculated value exceeds the preset reference value as a stratified sea area, and estimating a boundary between the regarded whole water depth mixing sea area and stratified sea area as a tidal front.”
The claim limitations considered to fall within in the abstract idea are highlighted in bold font above and the remaining features are “additional elements.”
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis entails determining whether the claimed subject matter falls within one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 5 recites an apparatus (machine) and claim 1 recites a method and each therefore falls within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One of the analysis entails determining whether the claim recites a judicial exception such as an abstract idea. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the highlighted portions of claim 5 fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the highlighted subject matter falls within the mental processes category (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and the mathematical concepts category (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The recited function “substituting and calculating the obtained past observation data into a preset whole water depth mixing discriminant, for a plurality of points in the sea area to be estimated”, as best understood and interpreted in view of the grounds for rejecting claims 1 and 5 under 112(b), is determined by the Examiner as falling within the mathematical relationships sub-category of mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) because, as disclosed in Applicant’s specification substituting the obtained past observation data into a preset whole water depth mixing discriminant to calculate a plurality of estimated points in the sea area is fundamentally characterized by mathematical calculations/relations and therefore constitutes mathematical relationships.
The recited functions “estimating a tidal front” and “as a result of the calculation, regarding an area of points where a calculated value is less than or equal to a preset reference value as a whole water depth mixing sea area, regarding an area of points where the calculated value exceeds the preset reference value as a stratified sea area, and estimating a boundary between the regarded whole water depth mixing sea area and stratified sea area as a tidal front” fall within the mental processes judicial exception because these functions may be performed as mental processes (e.g., evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis entails determining whether the claim includes additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception” (MPEP § 2106.04(d)).
MPEP § 2106.04(d) sets forth considerations to be applied in Step 2A, Prong Two for determining whether or not a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. Based on the individual and collective limitations of claim 5 and applying a broadest reasonable interpretation, the most applicable of such considerations appear to include: improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)); applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); and effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Regarding improvements to the functioning of a computer or other technology, none of the “additional elements” including, for example, that the apparatus includes “a memory configured to store instructions” and “a processor configured to execute the instructions,” and that the method includes “obtaining past observation data of a sea area to be estimated,” in any combination appear to integrate the abstract idea in a manner that technologically improves any aspect of a device or system that may be used to implement the highlighted steps or a device for implementing the highlighted steps such as a signal processing device or a generic computer. Instead, the apparatus comprising a memory storing instructions and a processor for executing the instructions represents non-particularized computer processing means for implementing the steps falling within the judicial exception and therefore constitute insignificant extra solution activity that neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application nor results in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The step of obtaining past observation data of a sea area to be estimated represents high-level data collection having no particularized functional relation to the processing steps and therefore also represents extra solution activity.
Regarding application of the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, the additional elements are not configured or otherwise implemented a particularized manner of implementing tidal front estimation.
Regarding a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, claim 5 does not include any such transformation or reduction. Instead, claim 5 as a whole entails receiving input information (e.g., past observation data), applying standard processing techniques (processor executing stored program instructions) to the information to determine water mixing/stratification/boundary information with the additional elements failing to provide a meaningful integration of the abstract idea in an application that transforms an article to a different state. Instead, the additional elements represent extra-solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In view of the various considerations encompassed by the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, claim 5 does not include additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claim 5 is directed to a judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Regarding Step 2B, and as explained in the Step 2A Prong Two analysis, the additional elements in claim 5 constitute insignificant extra solution activity and therefore fail to result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception as well as failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements appear to be generic and well understood as evidenced by the disclosures of D’Addezio (US 2023/0048788 A1) and Yamazaki (US 2009/0126254 A1), each of which teach using a computing platform, which inherently includes a memory for storing instructions executed by a processor, for computing water area characteristics.
As explained in the grounds for rejecting claim 5 under 103, D’Addezio teaches an apparatus for performing the processing in which the apparatus includes a memory configured to store instructions, and a processor configured to execute the instructions, as does Yamazaki (see FIG. 9 CPU 1 for processing, which inherently requires instructions stored in some form of memory; [0011], [0072]-[0073]).
Therefore, the additional elements are insufficient to result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 5 is therefore not patent eligible under 101.
Claim 1 includes substantially the same combination of elements falling within the judicial exception as claim 5 and includes no significant additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 1 is likewise also not patent eligible under 101 for the same reasons as set forth for claim 5.
Claims 2-4 depending from claim 1, provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm that includes the abstract idea of claim 1 (Step 2A, Prong One). None of dependent claims 2-4 recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two), and all fail the “significantly more” test under the step 2B for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to the independent claims.
For example, claim 2 further characterizes the nature of the types of data processed by the steps falling within the judicial exception and includes no further additional elements.
Claims 3-4 further characterize the nature of the mathematical relations used for processing the data and therefore also fall within the mathematical relations subcategory of the mathematical concepts exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argote et al., (1995), Tidal dissipation and stratification in the Gulf of California, J. Geophys. Res., 100(C8), 16103–16118, in view of D’Addezio (US 2023/0048788 A1).
As to claim 1, as best understood and interpreted in view of the grounds for rejecting claim 1 under 112(b), Argote teaches “[a] method of estimating a tidal front (Abstract describing method for effectively determining tidal fronts (boundary between well-mixed and stratified water) via determination of tidal mixing and stratified areas including use of Simpson-Hunter criterion for frontal position; (page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “This model has been quite successful …” explaining that the areas covered by Simpson-Hunter criteria values representing mixed areas and stratified areas forms the tidal front/boundary in between (“tidal fronts along the h/U3 contour”)),” “comprising:
obtaining past observation data of a sea area to be estimated (Abstract describing using of data surveys/observations for determining water parameters such as temperature and depth; page 16,105, Introduction, paragraph beginning with “Although the coincidence of areas …” and Figures 1 and 2 describing and depicting use of observed parameters for sea areas obtained via oceanic surveys for numeric modeling; page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “In order to investigate the applicability …” describing obtaining observation data including heat flux);
substituting and calculating the obtained past observation data into a preset whole water depth mixing discriminant (page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraphs beginning with “A convenient measure …”, “Assuming that stratification …”, and “This model has been quite successful …” describing substituting/inputting observation data in the form of depth, density, current speed, bottom drag/friction coefficient, etc. into mathematical models forming the Simpson-Hunter criterion/model that discriminates between stratified areas and well-mixed areas), for a plurality of points in the sea area to be estimated (page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraphs beginning with “This model has been quite successful …” describing application of Simpson-Hunter criterion/model applied for determining “distribution” of stratification factors over “areas”; Figure 4a depicting computation of stratification parameters (corresponding to Simpson-Hunter criterion)); and
as a result of the calculation, regarding an area of points where a calculated value is less than or equal to a preset reference value as a whole water depth mixing sea area (Abstract describing a threshold/boundary value λcrit as the boundary between stratification and mixed areas with values greater than λcrit representing stratification (not enough to produce complete mixing) such that values less than λcrit would represent mixed areas; page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “This model has been quite successful …” explaining that values below the threshold/boundary represent mixed conditions), regarding an area of points where the calculated value exceeds the preset reference value as a stratified sea area (Abstract describing a threshold/boundary value λcrit as the boundary between stratification and mixed areas with values greater than λcrit representing stratification (not enough to produce complete mixing); page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “This model has been quite successful …” explaining that values above the threshold/boundary represent stratified conditions), and estimating a boundary between the regarded whole water depth mixing sea area and stratified sea area as a tidal front (as described in the Abstract and page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “This model has been quite successful …” the areas covered by Simpson-Hunter criteria values representing mixed areas and stratified areas forms the tidal front/boundary in between (“tidal fronts along the h/U3 contour”)).
Argote appears silent regarding computational platform and so does not expressly teach that the method is “performed by an apparatus for estimating a tidal front.”
D’Addezio disclosed a method/system for processing ocean topography observation data to predict ocean conditions (Abstract) that uses an apparatus in the form of a processing device to process the data to generate results ([0012]-[0013] processing device to implement method; FIG. 16 computer system 1600, [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied D’Addezio’s teaching of using an apparatus such as a processing device to implement computations used for determining ocean conditions to the method taught by Argote which teaches estimating tidal fronts such that in combination the method is performed by an apparatus for estimating a tidal front.
Such a combination would amount to selecting a widely known design option for processing water area condition data to achieve predictable results.
As to claim 2, the combination of Argote and D’Addezio teaches “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein the obtained past observation data comprises a coefficient of friction of a seafloor in the sea area to be estimated (Argote: page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “Assuming that stratification …” explaining that bottom drag/friction coefficient is a parameter used (and therefore must be acquired) for modeling), a reference density before a temperature change (Argote: page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “Assuming that stratification …” explaining that density is a parameter used (and therefore must be acquired) for modeling), a specific heat (Argote: page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “Assuming that stratification …” explaining that heat capacity/specific heat Cp is a parameter used (and therefore must be acquired) for modeling), a contribution rate (Argote: page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “Assuming that stratification …” explaining that flux Richardson number ϵ representing fraction/rate of turbulent kinetic energy used in vertical mixing is a parameter used (and therefore must be acquired) for modeling), a volume expansion coefficient (Argote: page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “Assuming that stratification …” explaining that coefficient of thermal expansion α is a parameter used (and therefore must be acquired) for modeling), and a rate of change of a quantity of heat absorbed per unit area (Argote: page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “Assuming that stratification …” explaining that heat flux through the surface (surface heating rate) Q is a parameter used (and therefore must be acquired) for modeling).”
As to claim 3, the combination of Argote and D’Addezio teaches “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein the whole water depth mixing discriminant is set by the following mathematical expression, which is a relational expression between a flow velocity of a tidal current and a water depth:
PNG
media_image1.png
59
41
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where h is the water depth and u is the flow velocity of the tidal current (Argote: page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “This model has been quite successful …” describing relational expression h/U3 ; page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “A convenient measure …” explaining that h is depth; page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “Assuming that stratification …” explaining that U is current speed).”
As to claim 5, as best understood and interpreted in view of the grounds for rejecting claim 5 under 112(b), Argote teaches “[a]n” [method] “for estimating a tidal front (Abstract describing method for effectively determining tidal fronts (boundary between well-mixed and stratified water) via determination of tidal mixing and stratified areas including use of Simpson-Hunter criterion for frontal position; (page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “This model has been quite successful …” explaining that the areas covered by Simpson-Hunter criteria values representing mixed areas and stratified areas forms the tidal front/boundary in between (“tidal fronts along the h/U3 contour”)), comprising:”
“a method of estimating a tidal front comprising:
obtaining past observation data of a sea area to be estimated (Abstract describing using of data surveys/observations for determining water parameters such as temperature and depth; page 16,105, Introduction, paragraph beginning with “Although the coincidence of areas …” and Figures 1 and 2 describing and depicting use of observed parameters for sea areas obtained via oceanic surveys for numeric modeling; page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “In order to investigate the applicability …” describing obtaining observation data including heat flux);
substituting and calculating the obtained past observation data into a preset whole water depth mixing discriminant (page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraphs beginning with “A convenient measure …”, “Assuming that stratification …”, and “This model has been quite successful …” describing substituting/inputting observation data in the form of depth, density, current speed, bottom drag/friction coefficient, etc. into mathematical models forming the Simpson-Hunter criterion/model that discriminates between stratified areas and well-mixed areas), for a plurality of points in the sea area to be estimated (page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraphs beginning with “This model has been quite successful …” describing application of Simpson-Hunter criterion/model applied for determining “distribution” of stratification factors over “areas”; Figure 4a depicting computation of stratification parameters (corresponding to Simpson-Hunter criterion)); and
as a result of the calculation, regarding an area of points where a calculated value is less than or equal to a preset reference value as a whole water depth mixing sea area (Abstract describing a threshold/boundary value λcrit as the boundary between stratification and mixed areas with values greater than λcrit representing stratification (not enough to produce complete mixing) such that values less than λcrit would represent mixed areas; page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “This model has been quite successful …” explaining that values below the threshold/boundary represent mixed conditions), regarding an area of points where the calculated value exceeds the preset reference value as a stratified sea area (Abstract describing a threshold/boundary value λcrit as the boundary between stratification and mixed areas with values greater than λcrit representing stratification (not enough to produce complete mixing); page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “This model has been quite successful …” explaining that values above the threshold/boundary represent stratified conditions), and estimating a boundary between the regarded whole water depth mixing sea area and stratified sea area as a tidal front (as described in the Abstract and page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “This model has been quite successful …” the areas covered by Simpson-Hunter criteria values representing mixed areas and stratified areas forms the tidal front/boundary in between (“tidal fronts along the h/U3 contour”)).”
Argote appears silent regarding computational platform and so does not expressly teach an “apparatus” for performing the method that includes “a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions, wherein the instructions perform a method.”
D’Addezio disclosed a method/system for processing ocean topography observation data to predict ocean conditions (Abstract) that uses an apparatus in the form of a processing device that includes memory and a processor for executing instructions to process the data to generate results ([0012]-[0013] processing device including memory storing instructions to implement method; FIG. 16 computer system 1600 including memory 1604 and processor 1602, [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied D’Addezio’s teaching of using an apparatus such as a processing device to implement computations used for determining ocean conditions to the method taught by Argote which teaches estimating tidal fronts such that in combination the method is performed by an apparatus that includes a memory configured to store instructions and a processor configured to execute the instructions, wherein the instructions perform the method.
Such a combination would amount to selecting a widely known design option for processing water area condition data to achieve predictable results.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argote in view of D’Addezio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Simpson et al., Fronts in the Irish Sea. Nature 250, 404–406 (1974).
As to claim 4, the combination of Argote and D’Addezio teaches “[t]he method of claim 1,” and Argote further teaches that the whole water depth mixing discriminant is based on the previously known Simpson-Hunter relation h/U3, which may be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of a seafloor (page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “Assuming that stratification …” explaining that bottom drag/friction coefficient is a parameter used (and therefore must be acquired) for modeling), a reference density before a temperature change (page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “Assuming that stratification …” explaining that density is a parameter used (and therefore must be acquired) for modeling), a specific heat (page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “Assuming that stratification …” explaining that heat capacity/specific heat Cp is a parameter used (and therefore must be acquired) for modeling), a contribution rate (page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “Assuming that stratification …” explaining that flux Richardson number ϵ representing fraction/rate of turbulent kinetic energy used in vertical mixing is a parameter used (and therefore must be acquired) for modeling), a volume expansion coefficient (Argote: page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “Assuming that stratification …” explaining that coefficient of thermal expansion α is a parameter used (and therefore must be acquired) for modeling), a gravitational acceleration (page 16,106, variable “g” in equation (3); page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “A convenient measure...” explaining that “g” is acceleration of gravity), and a rate of change of a quantity of heat absorbed per unit area (page 16,106, 2. Bulk Model of Stratification in Tidal Shelf Seas, paragraph beginning with “Assuming that stratification …” explaining that heat flux through the surface (surface heating rate) Q is a parameter used (and therefore must be acquired) for modeling).”
Simpson discloses a method for characterizing tidal fronts that includes applying a form of the Simpson-Hunter relation in the form of h/u3o = 8cρkε/3παgQ (page 406, paragraph in left column beginning with “Assuming that the density is a linear function …” through paragraph in right column beginning with “Assuming that ε and k are constant …”; Page 406, right column, first line explaining that Q is a rate of heat input (i.e., rate of change of quantity of heat absorbed)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Simpson’s teaching of applying a mixing discriminant of the form h/u3o = 8cρkε/3παgQ to the method taught by Argote as modified by D’Addezio, such that in combination the method is configured such that the calculated value of the whole water depth mixing discriminant is calculated by the following mathematical expression:
PNG
media_image2.png
55
180
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where k is a coefficient of friction of a seafloor, ρ0 is a reference density before a temperature change, Cp is a specific heat, ϵ is a contribution rate, α is a volume expansion coefficient, g is a gravitational acceleration, and dQ/dt is a rate of change of a quantity of heat absorbed per unit area.
Such a combination would amount to using a known design option for selection of a mixing discriminant to achieve predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W BACA whose telephone number is (571)272-2507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/MATTHEW W. BACA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
