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
Claims 1-20 have been cancelled and Claims 21-40 have been added; therefore, Claims 21-40 are currently pending in application 18/828,948.
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 claims at issue 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); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,086,890. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions disclose equivalent elements that use graph modeling computing for payroll data analysis to determine competitive relationships.
18/828,948
US 12,086,890 (17/451,054)
Independent Claims 21, 31, and 39
A system (method, programmed apparatus), comprising: one or more processors, coupled with memory, to:
[22. (32.) The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
perform payroll processing for the first entity and the second entity.]
[23. (33.) The system of claim 22, wherein the one or more processors are operated by a third entity that is different from the first entity and the second entity. ]
[25. (35.) The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, via a network, from the first entity, the first payroll information comprising a first list of data, wherein each item in the first list of data is associated with a respective first identifier having a first relationship to the first entity; and receive, via the network, from the second entity, the second payroll information comprising a second list of data, wherein each item in the second list of data is associated with a respective second identifier having a second relationship to the second entity.]
[24. (34.) The system of claim 23, wherein the list of competitive entities indicates: i) the first entity is a competitor to the second entity, ii) the third entity is a noncompetitor to the first entity, and iii) the third entity is a noncompetitor to the second entity. ]
[26. The system of claim 25, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: create the graph model of the first list of data, the second list of data, and the list of competitive entities.]
initiate, responsive to receipt of a machine executable instruction via an input interface associated with a display device, execution of a graph model analysis using a graph data structure; access, responsive to execution of the graph model analysis using the graph data structure a database constructed in accordance with a graph model, the graph model corresponding to first payroll information of a first entity, second payroll information of a second entity, and a list of competitive entities, wherein identifiers associated with the first payroll information and the second payroll information are represented as nodes, and competitive relationships between the first entity and the second entity based on the list of competitive entities are represented as edges interconnecting the nodes to form the graph model;
execute, via accessing the database in response to execution of the graph model analysis, at least one cypher query on the database to traverse the edges of the graph model and select a subset of the graph model that identifies at least one competitive relationship indicative of a conflict between a pair of identifiers, the pair of identifiers comprising a first identifier associated with the first payroll information and a second identifier associated with the second payroll information, wherein the first identifier and the second identifier are connected via the edges to competing nodes of the graph model;
[27. (36.) The system of claim 25, wherein the pair of identifiers comprises the respective first identifier and the respective second identifier.]
generate a graphic illustration of the subset of the graph model that indicates the at least one competitive relationship;
provide first output to cause a display device to display the graphic illustration of the subset of the graph model; and
provide second output to cause the display device to display an indication of the at least one competitive relationship between the pair of identifiers in accordance with receiving the machine executable instruction.
Independent Claims 1, 7, and 39
A system (method, programmed apparatus) comprising:
performing, by a computing system operated by a third entity, payroll processing for a first entity and a second entity different from the third entity;
receiving, by the computing system, across a network from the first entity, a first list of data corresponding to first payroll information, wherein each item in the first list of data is associated with a respective first identifier having a first relationship to the first entity;
receiving, by the computing system, across the network from the second entity, a second list of data corresponding to second payroll information, wherein each item in the second list of data is associated with a respective second identifier having a second relationship to the second entity;
receiving, by the computing system, a list of competitive entities that indicates: i) the first entity is a competitor to the second entity, ii) the third entity is a noncompetitor to the first entity, and iii) the third entity is a noncompetitor to the second entity;
creating, by the computing system, by executing a graph model generator, a graph model of the first list of data, the second list of data, and the list of competitive entities;
constructing, by the computing system, a database in accordance with the graph model of the first list of data, the second list of data, and the list of competitive entities;
executing, by the computing system, to identify one more conflicting relationships, at least one cypher query on the database constructed in accordance with the graph model of the first list of data, the second list of data, and the list of competitive entities;
selecting, by the computing system, responsive to execution of the at least one cypher query on the database, a subset of the graph model that identifies at least one competitive relationship indicative of a conflict between at least one pair of the respective first identifier related to the first payroll information and the respective second identifier related to the second payroll information;
creating, by the computing system, a graphic illustration of the subset of the graph model indicating the at least one competitive relationship;
outputting, by the computing system, to a display device, a first display comprising the graphic illustration of the subset of the graph model; and
outputting, by the computing system, to the display device, a second display, the second display illustrative of the at least one competitive relationship between the at least one pair of the respective first identifier and the respective second identifier.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea.
Claims 21-40 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea), without providing a practical application, and without providing significantly more.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Regarding Step 1,
Claims 21-30 are directed toward an apparatus (system). Claims 31-38 are directed toward a process (method). Claims 39-40 are directed toward a computer program product having computer-readable tangible storage media (article of manufacture). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
Claims 21-40 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 21, 31, and 39 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of business-related data analytics (organizing, analyzing, and displaying business relationship data).
Regarding independent claims 21, 31, and 39, the underlined limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
A method, comprising:
initiate, responsive to receipt of a machine executable instruction via an input interface associated with a display device, execution of a graph model analysis using a graph data structure; [Abstract Idea: Mental Process / Mathematical Concept; Core Concept: The generalized mental act of deciding to analyze data or initiate a sequence of logical operations. Graph model analysis can be executed mentally/ manually with pen and paper.]
access, responsive to execution of the graph model analysis using the graph data structure a database constructed in accordance with a graph model, the graph model corresponding to first information of a first entity, second information of a second entity, and a list of competitive entities, wherein identifiers associated with the first payroll information and the second payroll information are represented as nodes, and competitive relationships between the first entity and the second entity based on the list of competitive entities are represented as edges interconnecting the nodes to form the graph model; [Abstract Idea: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (managing business/commercial information); Core Concept: Creating a data model or relational taxonomy of business entities and payroll records, which can conceptually be done on paper.]
executing, via accessing the database in response to execution of the graph model analysis, at least one cypher query on the database to traverse the edges of the graph model and select a subset of the graph model that identifies at least one competitive relationship indicative of a conflict between a pair of identifiers, the pair of identifiers comprising a first identifier associated with the first payroll information and a second identifier associated with the second payroll information, wherein the first identifier and the second identifier are connected via the edges to competing nodes of the graph model; [Abstract Idea: Mental Process (identifying a conflict) / Mathematical Concept (graph theory, node analysis); Core Concept: Information filtering, sorting, and analyzing data connections that mimic human evaluation or manual lookup.]
generating, by the one or more processors, a graphic illustration of the subset of the graph model that indicates the at least one competitive relationship; [Abstract Idea: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (Data presentation); Core Concept: Organizing and displaying human-readable charts or diagrams representing conceptual information.]
providing, by the one or more processors, first output to cause a display device to display the graphic illustration of the subset of the graph model; and providing, by the one or more processors, second output to cause the display device to display an indication of the at least one competitive relationship between the pair of identifiers in accordance with receiving the machine executable instruction. [Abstract Idea: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (Data displaying / Communication of information); Core Concept: Conveying informational results and visual reports to an observer.]
As the underlined claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 21, 31, and 39 are directed to the abstract idea of Mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); and Certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)).
Dependent claims 22-30, 32-38, and 40 provide further details to the abstract idea of claims 21, 31, and 39 regarding the received data, therefore, these claims include mathematical concepts and certain methods of organizing human activities for similar reasons provided above for claims 21, 31, and 39.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
Claims 21-40 fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “system”, a “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, a “processor”, “memory”, a “database”, a “network”, “machine executable instruction”, an “input interface”, and a “display device”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment; they are simply automating a business process (a manager identifying competitor conflicts) with a computer.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant’s claimed invention. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Examples where the Courts have found selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated to be insignificant extra-solution activity include selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Applicant’s limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits. The claims simply use generic computer components ("one or more processors," "database," "display device") to execute the graph analysis and output a graphic illustration. Dependent claims 22-30, 32-38, and 40 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B,
Claims 21-40 fail to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “system”, a “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, a “processor”, “memory”, a “database”, a “network”, and a “display device”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea because the limitations only recite generic database queries, node/edge mapping, and visual rendering, they do not amount to an "inventive concept". Sorting business intelligence data using a known graph structure is treated as conventional data processing.. The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 22-30, 32-38, and 40 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 21, 31, and 39 respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims21, 31, and 39; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits. The addition of another abstract concept to the limitations of the claims does not render the claim other than abstract. Under the Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (PEG 2019), it specifically states that narrowing an abstract idea of claims do not resolve the claims of being "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements in the dependent claims only serve to further limit the abstract idea utilizing the computer components as a tool and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 21-40 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/8/2026, with respect to the prior art rejection of Claims 21-40, have been considered, and are persuasive. Both the 102(a)(2) rejection of Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, and 19-20, and the 103(a) rejection of Claims 3 and 13, are withdrawn by the Examiner due to applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/8/2026, with respect to the double Patenting rejection and 101 rejections of Claims 21-40, have been considered but are not persuasive. The rejection will remain as FINAL, based on the rejection above.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The Applicant has made the argument that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter.8
However, while the Applicant's claims are directed to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter (Step 1), the claims fail to recite limitations that are “significantly more” than an abstract idea (Step 2a-2b).
The claim limitations (under their broadest reasonable interpretation) recite Certain methods of organizing human activity, Mathematical concepts, and/or Mental processes as defined in the guidance set forth in the 2019 Memorandum. This is so because the claimed limitations recite steps that involve (business-related data analytics (organizing, analyzing, and displaying business relationship data), and steps that a person can perform in his mind or with the aid of pen and paper. See In re BRCA1 & BCR A 2 — Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litig., 11A F.3d 755, 763 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding that comparing information and making determinations based on the comparisons is an “abstract mental process.”). Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claims recite a judicial exception of a Mental process, Mathematical concepts, and/or Certain methods of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, having determined that claims recite a judicial exception, analysis under the Memorandum turns now to determining whether there are “additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” See Memorandum (Step 2A, prong 2), see also MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application within the meaning defined in the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines, Examiner notes the following. While the computer technology does make the steps more easily performed, in principle, the steps can be performed without such computer and the notion of ‘practicality’ is not evidenced. ‘Practicality’ is based on whether the invention demonstrates:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The claims are simply directed to an abstract idea (searching, correlating, and transmitting/ displaying data based on saved rules and characteristics) with additional generic computer elements, because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, and because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Finally, the examination proceeds to evaluating whether the claims add specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Memorandum (Step 2B). The claims do not add specific limitations beyond what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The Applicant has also made the argument that Claims 21-40 are directed to patent eligible subject matter because the claims are not directed to an abstract idea pursuant to Step 2A (Prong Two) and Step 2B. The Applicant’s arguments reference the 2019 PEG, and the decisions rendered in Enfish, DDR, BASCOM, and Core Wireless. However, unlike the claims at issue in Enfish, which involved a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory (822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir.2016), the claimed elements do not improve or change the way a computer functions/operates.; and unlike the claims at issue in DDR Holdings, the claimed elements do not overcome a problem unique to the Internet (773 F.3d at 1258-59). Furthermore, this application is unlike BASCOM, where, “[o]n [a] limited record” and when viewed in favor of the patentee, the claims alleged a “technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering [Internet] content.” 827 F.3d at 1350. The patent in BASCOM did not merely move existing content filtering technology from local computers to the Internet, which “would not contain an inventive concept,” but “overc[a]me[] existing problems with other Internet filtering systems”—i.e., it solved the problem of “inflexible one-size-fits-all” remote filtering schemes (caused by simply moving filtering technology to the Internet) by enabling individualized filtering at the ISP server. Id at 1350–51. In other words, the patent in BASCOM did not purport to improve the Internet itself by introducing prior art filtering technology to the Internet. Rather, the BASCOM patent fixed a problem presented by combining the two. Claims 21-40 fail to recite any improvement to conventional risk analysis software, nor do claims 21-40 solve any problem associated with situating such risk analysis on the computer network. Finally, although the Applicant analogizes the claimed user interface with the interface claimed in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The claims in Core Wireless were directed to “an improved user interface for electronic devices, particularly those with small screens” where the improvement was in “the efficiency of using the electronic device by bringing together ‘a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data,’ which can be accessed directly from the main menu.” Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363. The Specification supported these improvements over “the prior art interfaces [that] had many deficits relating to the efficient functioning of the computer, requiring a user ‘to scroll around and switch views many times to find the right data/functionality.” Id. The Court found that the disclosure in the Specification regarding the speed of a user’s navigation through various views and windows was improved and that this disclosure “clearly indicates that the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly those with small screens.” That is not the case here. Applicants do not identify any disclosure in the Specification demonstrating that the claims are directed to an improvement to the display of an electronic device. The claims here are not directed to an improved user interface and are not analogous to the claims in Core Wireless, but instead “[use] conventional user interface methods to display a data on a computer.” Id. at 1363; cf Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-43 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting a user interface that generates and displays selectable user interface elements from other selectable user interface elements does not transform an otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting use of a generic computer element like a user interface is not patent-eligible subject matter); Intellectual Ventures ILLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (2017) (noting a user interface that provides little more than an unspecified set of rules for displaying and organizing elements does not recite eligible subject matter).
The Examiner therefore maintains the 35 USC 101 rejections.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are addressed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
August 7, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights