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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in JAPAN JP2023-146220 filed on 09/08/2023.
The priority document has been electronically received from the participating IP Office on 04/16/2025.
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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
In the instant case, Claims 1-20 are directed to starting transaction related to the reservation based on first information and handling a medium based on second information related to the relative locations. The claims 1-20 are analyzed to see if claims are statutory category of invention, recites judicial exception and the claims are further analyzed to see if the claims are integrated into practical application if the judicial exception is recited and the claims provides an inventive as per 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) and October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility as set forth below:
Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 106.03.
Claim 1 is directed to a process i.e., a series of method steps or acts, , for reservation for transaction, which is a statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES)
Claim 20 is directed to a system comprising apparatus and a server for reservation for transaction. The claimed system is therefore directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (a combination of device) (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. There are no nature- based product limitations in this claim, and thus the markedly different characteristics analysis is not performed. However, the claim still must be reviewed to determine if it recites any other type of judicial exception.
Claims 1 and 20 are similar and they are then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recite plurality of steps “receiving a reservation set by a client for a transaction and starting transaction related to the reservation based on first information related to relative locations.”
.”
The limitations of receiving a reservation set and starting transaction related to the reservation based on first information related to relative locations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind similar to Mortgage Grader, Inc., v. First Choice Loan Servcs with computer implemented method and system for anonymous shopping loan packages but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “server and processing apparatus,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and thus fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract idea set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. For example, but for the “a processor and memory” language, “receiving a reservation and starting transaction related to the reservation” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing the recited steps. The recitation of a processing apparatus in this claim does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the claim here merely uses the processor as a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, the above limitations of recite concepts that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (YES).
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Besides the abstract idea as described in Prong 1, the claim recites the additional elements of performing “allowing the client to handle a medium based on second information related to the relative locations.”
An evaluation of whether the limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity is then performed. Note that because the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis excludes consideration of whether a limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), this evaluation does not take into account whether or not limitation (a) is well-known. See October 2019 Update at Section III.D. When so evaluated, this additional element represents mere handle a medium based on second information related to the relative locations which does not amount to an inventive concept (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358) and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Processing apparatus is also an additional element which is configured to carry out limitations in steps described in Prong 1. But the processing device is recited so generically without any details that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a controller. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the computer does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive concept? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, there are two additional elements.
The first is the processing apparatus, which is configured to perform all the limitations recited. As explained previously, the processing device is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The second additional element is limitation of allowing the client to handle a medium based on second information related to the relative locations, which as explained previously is extra-solution activity, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. Under the 2019 PEG, however, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. 2019 PEG Section III(B), 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Here, the recitation of a processing device being configured to allowing the client to handle a medium based on second information related to the relative locations is mere handling atm based on provided data that is recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitation (a) does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Further, Applicant specifically described invention receiving a reservation, starting transaction related to the reservation based on locations of the client and handle a medium based on information related to the relative locations in Fig. 12: paragraph [page 23-36]). The claimed additional elements of allowing the client to handle a medium based on second information related to the relative locations is implemented using examples of existing computer networking equipment, hardware, and software that are used to construct the claimed invention without apparent modification (see Fig. 3; Specification: pages 1416). Therefore, the additional element only recite generic components and steps are well-understood routine and conventional. Claims as recited do not provide any particular asserted inventive technology for performing those functions and therefore the claims are held patent ineligible (see Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims is not patent eligible. (NO).
Dependent Claims:
Examiner further reviewed the dependent claims 2-10 and 15-19 that could be added to the independent claims 1 or 22 to make patent eligible. The dependent claims as recited pertains to additional steps which further describes “timing of acquiring second information, closeness ATM and client with respect to first and second information received, withdrawal transaction, transporting money in the ATM from inside to outside, opening and closing shutter for client to take out money, deposit transaction, handling money during expected time of reservation, , acquiring first and second information and controlling medium processing apparatus, which appear to be a mental process using a generic computer component that been found to be an abstract idea as described above. These dependent claims do not provide additional elements significantly more than the purported abstract idea that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims as recited would not make the independent claim significantly more by incorporating them into the independent claim 27. Therefore, claims 1-2 are not patent eligible (NO). The claims 1-10 and 15-19 are not patent eligible because they do not recite a judicial exception as per 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) and October 2019 Update of Subject Matter Eligibility.
Dependent claims 11-14:
The additional limitations in claims 11-14 incorporated into claim 1 or 20 would makes the claim patent eligible which shortens medium processing time by processing at higher speed reservation of second client nor related to first client reservation before the expected time by decreasing number of items displayed to the second client (see Fig. 14: Specification, page 31-204, lines 21-25 to page 35, lines 1-20).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7 , 9, 10, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Dhulipalla et al., U.S. Pub No. 2018/0130035 (reference A in attached PTO-892) in view of Thomas et al., U.S. Patent No. 12,243,043 (reference B in attached PTO-892)
As per claim 1, Dhulipalla et al. teach a medium processing method comprising:
receiving, by a server, a reservation set by a client for a transaction including medium
processing by a medium processing apparatus (Fig. 3, User Device (120), ATM System (35), Transaction System/Server (30), Network (80): paragraph [0043-0044); where transaction system receive reservation to request withdraw amount by a user device);
starting, by the medium processing apparatus, the medium processing corresponding
to the transaction related to the reservation based on first information related to relative
locations of the client and the medium processing apparatus (see Fig. 4;: paragraph [0044-0045]; where transaction reservation and transaction initiation is based on selection of plurality of ATMs based on location of the user device);
Dhulipalla et al. do not teach allowing, by the medium processing apparatus, the client to handle a medium in the medium processing apparatus based on second information related to the relative locations, thereby completing the transaction related to the reservation.
Thomas et al. teach allowing, by the medium processing apparatus, the client to handle a medium in the medium processing apparatus based on second information related to the relative locations, thereby completing the transaction related to the reservation (see abstract, Fig. 3 and 4: Receive Proximity Notification from ATM to Mobile Device (Steps 310 and 410): column 2, lines 21-41).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow allowing, by the medium processing apparatus, the client to handle a medium in the medium processing apparatus based on second information related to the relative locations, thereby completing the transaction related to the reservation to Dhulipalla et al. because Thomas et al. teach including above features would enable detect user mobile device of customer and transmit proximity and identifier to user define to complete pre-staged/reserved cash withdrawal from the ATM (see abstract).
As per claim 2, Dhulipalla et al. teach the claim 1 as described above. Dhulipalla et al. further teach the medium processing method, wherein
the second information is acquired at timing after that of the first information (where second information of proximity of user device is transmitted after identifying ATM based on location of the ATM .
As per claim 3, Dhulipalla et al. teach the claim 1 as described above. Dhulipalla et al. further teach the medium processing method, wherein
the relative locations of the client and the medium processing apparatus in the second
information are closer to each other as compared to the relative locations of the client and the
medium processing apparatus in the first information (location of mobile device as customer approached ATM is detected by ATM is closer that location ATM based user device far away in home detected using GPS).
As per claim 4, Dhulipalla et al. teach the claim 1 as described above. Dhulipalla et al. further teach the medium processing method, wherein
the transaction is a withdrawal transaction, and in the withdrawal transaction, the medium processing apparatus dispenses money to an outside thereof (see paragraph 0044]; where transaction is withdrawal; of $100.00 from ATM).
As per claim 7, Dhulipalla et al. teach the claim 1 as described above. Dhulipalla et al. further teach the medium processing method, wherein
the transaction is a money change transaction, and in the money change transaction, the medium processing apparatus takes money of the client therein, and dispenses money, which is equivalent to the taken money, to an outside thereof (see paragraph [0044, 0049]; where money withdrawn in preferred type of exchange currency such Euro before US Dollar from the client account).
As per claim 9, Dhulipalla et al. teach the claim 1 as described above. Dhulipalla et al. further teach the medium processing method, wherein
the transaction is a deposit transaction, and in the deposit transaction, the medium processing apparatus takes money of the client therein (see paragraph [0005]; where currency deposit are analyzed for integrity and quality prior to accepting it, damaged or counterfeit notes are rejected).
As per claim 10, Dhulipalla et al. teach the claim 1 as described above. Dhulipalla et al. further teach the medium processing method, wherein
the reservation includes an expected time at which the client handles money using the
medium processing apparatus, and the medium processing apparatus starts, before the expected time, the medium processing corresponding to the transaction related to the reservation (see abstract and paragraph [0046-0047]; where user reserves ATM for specified expected time for withdrawal amount and user visit and withdraws amount from the ATM within the expected time and ATM is allocated another user after the expected time expires).
As per claim 15, Dhulipalla et al. teach the claim 1 as described above. Dhulipalla et al. further teach the medium processing method, wherein
the medium processing apparatus limits a client performing a transaction at the expected time only to the client related to the reservation (see paragraph [0046]; where client reserved specified time perform the ATM transaction within the specified time and another client reserves fund withdrawal after the specified predetermined time).
As per claim 16, Dhulipalla et al. teach the claim 1 as described above. Dhulipalla et al. further teach the medium processing method, wherein
in a case where the transaction of the client related to the reservation is not completed
even after the expected time has passed, the medium processing apparatus cancels the
transaction related to the reservation, and removes the limitation (see paragraph [0046]; where at the end predetermined time of reservation will be withdrawn or reserved another user if the previous client reservation is not completed within the reservation time).
As per claims 17-18, Dhulipalla et al. teach the claim 1 as described above. Dhulipalla et al. further teach the medium processing method, wherein
the first information are acquired using a communication function of a mobile terminal held by the client and the first information is acquired using a communication function of a mobile terminal held by the client (see Fig. 3, User Device (120), Transaction System (30): paragraph [0041, 0045, 0049]; where user selection of criteria of first information of ATM reservation based on location is received via user device and transaction system determines specific ATM having sufficient resources based on location of user device).
Dhulipalla et al. do not teach the second information are acquired using a communication function of a mobile terminal held by the client; and the second information is acquired using a sensor of the medium processing apparatus.
Thomas et al. teach the second information are acquired using a communication function of a mobile terminal held by the client; and the second information is acquired using a sensor of the medium processing apparatus (see abstract, Fig. 2, Transaction Machine/ATM (120: Proximity Device (136); column 4, lines 24-34; column 6, lines 55-67 to column 6, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the second information are acquired using a communication function of a mobile terminal held by the client; and the second information is acquired using a sensor of the medium processing apparatus to Dhulipalla et al. because Thomas et al. teach including above features would enable detect user mobile device of customer and transmit proximity and identifier to user define to complete pre-staged/reserved cash withdrawal from the ATM (see abstract).
As per claim 19, Dhulipalla et al. teach the claim 1 as described above. Dhulipalla et al. further teach the medium processing method, wherein
the medium processing apparatus has control circuitry that controls the medium
processing apparatus, and based on acquisition of information on the transaction related to the reservation from the server by the control circuitry and acquisition of the first information from the mobile terminal by the control circuitry, the medium processing is started by the control circuitry (see Fig. 3, Transaction System/Server (30): Fig. 2, User Device (120): paragraph [0015, 0038, 0049-0050]; where transaction system as a server with processing circuit communicate with user device selection of preferred location of ATM on reservation request and determine ATM radius location and select and transmit ATM location to user device).
As per claim 20, Dhulipalla et al. teach a medium processing system comprising:
a medium processing apparatus that executes a transaction including medium
processing (see abstract; Fig. 3, Transaction System/Server (30): Fig. 2: paragraph [0036]); implementing steps as described in the claim 1 above.
Claims 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhulipalla et al., U.S. Pub No. 2018/0130035 (reference A in attached PTO-892) in view of Thomas et al., U.S. Patent No. 12,243,043 (reference B in attached PTO-892) in view of Tanaka, U.S. Pub No. 2013/0015035 (reference C in attached PTO-892) further in view of Denny et al., U.S. Pub No. 2018/0247286 (reference D in attached PTO-892).
As per claims 5-6 and 8, Dhulipalla et al. teach the claim 1 as described above. Dhulipalla et al. further teach reserving requested amount of currency for transaction request at particular ATM for predetermine time frame based on first information of location of the user device (see abstract, paragraph [0024, 0043-0044])
Dhulipalla et al. do not teach the medium processing apparatus starts, based on the first information, transporting money from an inside to the outside thereof the medium processing apparatus has a holder that holds money to be dispensed to the outside thereof and a shutter that opens and closes an outlet port of the holder, the medium processing apparatus closes the shutter while transporting money to the holder, and opens the shutter when the client is allowed to take out money from the holder based on the second information; and the medium processing apparatus has a feeder that feeds money therein, a dispenser that holds money to be dispensed to an outside thereof, and a shutter that opens and closes an outlet port of the dispenser, the medium processing apparatus starts transporting money therein to the dispenser based on the first information, and closes the shutter while transporting money to the dispenser, and the medium processing apparatus allows the client to feed money into the medium processing apparatus through the feeder based on the second information, and opens the shutter when the client is allowed to take out money from the dispenser after money has been taken in.
Denny et al. teach the medium processing apparatus closes the shutter while transporting money to the holder, and opens the shutter when the client is allowed to take out money from the holder based on the second information; and the medium processing apparatus has a feeder that feeds money therein, a dispenser that holds money to be dispensed to an outside thereof, and a shutter that opens and closes an outlet port of the dispenser, and closes the shutter while transporting money to the dispenser, and the medium processing apparatus allows the client to feed money into the medium processing apparatus through the feeder based on the second information, and opens the shutter when the client is allowed to take out money from the dispenser after money has been taken in (see abstract, Fig. 4: paragraph [0011, 0023, 0028-0030]; where shutter or media aperture which is normally closed on received second information (PIN) from user mobile device and feeds money from to dispenser and dispense cash when open).
Tanaka et al. teach the transporting money from an inside to the outside thereof the medium processing apparatus has a holder that holds money to be dispensed to the outside thereof and a shutter that opens and closes an outlet port of the holder, and the medium processing apparatus starts transporting money therein to the dispenser (see abstract).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the medium processing apparatus starts transporting money from an inside to the outside thereof the medium processing apparatus has a holder that holds money to be dispensed to the outside thereof and a shutter that opens and closes an outlet port of the holder, the medium processing apparatus closes the shutter while transporting money to the holder, and opens the shutter when the client is allowed to take out money from the holder; and the medium processing apparatus has a feeder that feeds money therein, a dispenser that holds money to be dispensed to an outside thereof, and a shutter that opens and closes an outlet port of the dispenser, the medium processing apparatus starts transporting money therein to the dispenser, and closes the shutter while transporting money to the dispenser, and the medium processing apparatus allows the client to feed money into the medium processing apparatus through the feeder, and opens the shutter when the client is allowed to take out money from the dispenser after money has been taken in to Dhulipalla et al. because Tanaka et al. teach including above features would enable to control operation of inner and outer shutters perform independently (Tanaka et al., paragraph [0005]) and Thomas et al. and Denny et al. teach provide enhanced security feature in retrieving or depositing by allowing to open shutter only when the customer request is validated or authorized (Thomas et al., column 9, lines 24-27; Denny et al., abstract, paragraph [0011]).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhulipalla et al., U.S. Pub No. 2018/0130035 (reference A in attached PTO-892) in view of Thomas et al., U.S. Patent No. 12,243,043 (reference B in attached PTO-892) in view of Kentaro, Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 6338564 B2 (reference N in attached PTO-892).
As per claims 11-14, Dhulipalla et al. teach the claim 1 as described above.
Dhulipalla et al. do not teach in a case where the medium processing apparatus executes medium processing related to a second client not related to the reservation before the expected time, the medium processing apparatus executes the medium processing in a second mode in which a time required for the medium processing is shortened as compared to a normal mode; the medium processing apparatus performs, in the second mode, operation related to the medium processing at a higher speed than that of the normal mode; the medium processing apparatus decreases, in the second mode, the number of items displayed for the second client on a display as compared to the normal mode; and the medium processing apparatus limits, in the second mode, a content of processing allowed for the second client as compared to the normal mode.
Kentaro teaches in a case where the medium processing apparatus executes medium processing related to a second client not related to the reservation before the expected time, the medium processing apparatus executes the medium processing in a second mode in which a time required for the medium processing is shortened as compared to a normal mode; the medium processing apparatus performs, in the second mode, operation related to the medium processing at a higher speed than that of the normal mode; the medium processing apparatus decreases, in the second mode, the number of items displayed for the second client on a display as compared to the normal mode; and the medium processing apparatus limits, in the second mode, a content of processing allowed for the second client as compared to the normal mode (see page 3, last two paragraphs; page 2, first two paragraphs; page 5, second paragraph and page 9, second paragraph; where ATM processing time is shortened).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow in a case where the medium processing apparatus executes medium processing related to a second client not related to the reservation before the expected time, the medium processing apparatus executes the medium processing in a second mode in which a time required for the medium processing is shortened as compared to a normal mode; the medium processing apparatus performs, in the second mode, operation related to the medium processing at a higher speed than that of the normal mode; the medium processing apparatus decreases, in the second mode, the number of items displayed for the second client on a display as compared to the normal mode; and the medium processing apparatus limits, in the second mode, a content of processing allowed for the second client as compared to the normal mode to Dhulipalla et al. because Kentaro teaches including above features would enable to reduce waiting time for second customer (Kentaro, page 9, second paragraph).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosures. The following are pertinent to current invention, though not relied upon:
Burdick et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2017/0140353) teach automatic teller machine inventory and distribution system.
Clark et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,378,770) teach replenishing automated teller machine .
Ryuichi et al. (Korean Patent Publication No. KR93-0011728) teach reservation transaction processing configuring automatic cash transaction.
Jun (Japanese Patent Publication No. Jp2007-219741A)) teach exclusive reservation management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIJENDRA K SHRESTHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1374. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. 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.
Respectfully submitted,
/BIJENDRA K SHRESTHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 February 4, 2026