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
The current application is the US National Phase under 35 USC 371 of PCT/JP2023/015815, filed April 20, 2023, and claims benefit to JP2022-070171, filed April 21, 2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been retrieved in the current file as of June 27, 2025.
Claims Status
Claims 1-10 are pending and stand rejected.
Objection - Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested:
Information processing system, method and program for estimating a degree of
resolution of a skin problem of a user
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112(f)
[This is not a rejection]
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) appear in claims 1-9 and include:
an estimation unit, a providing unit, and a determination unit.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-9, the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted the claims in light of the suggested changes provided below. The issues under 35 USC 112(b) are as follows:
Regarding claims 1-9, claim limitation an estimation unit, a providing unit, and a determination unit invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Examiner observes that the estimation unit, providing unit, and determination unit are part of a “control unit” (e.g., Fig. 4), with the control unit defined as hardware (see: 0039, 0052). The estimation unit, providing unit, and determination unit, however, remain undefined. That is, while they may be implemented by the control unit, it is unclear what structure actually comprises the claimed estimation unit, providing unit, and determination unit. The specification does not further define or describe the units, nor does the specification give examples of what hardware they may be comprised of (or even if they are intended as hardware or software). At best, 0089 indicates that programming “controls each unit”, indicating that the units are some form of (undisclosed) hardware.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For examination purposes the claimed units will be understood as one or more pieces of hardware configured to perform their respective functions. The Examiner suggests amending the claim as follows (note: further amendment is necessary to the dependent claims):
1. (Currently Amended) An information processing apparatus including:
a control unit;
a memory storing program code, the program code configured to cause the control unit to:
Regarding claim 2, a determination unit that determines whether or not a cosmetic present is present for which the degree of resolution that is estimated by the estimation unit exceeds a predetermined threshold. It is unclear how the determination unit determines whether or not a cosmetic present is present for which the degree of resolution that is estimated by the estimation unit exceeds a predetermined threshold should be understood. If the cosmetic is already “present”, then how is it also determined as present for which the degree of resolution that is estimated by the estimation unit exceeds a predetermined threshold. This phrasing is narrative in nature stemming from an apparent literal translation, , and indefinite in nature. This is further exacerbated by the phrasing wherein when the determination unit determines that the cosmetic product is absent (in light of the cosmetic being referred to as present). The Examiner suggests the following language for clarification:
a determination unit that determines whether or not for each cosmetic product exceeds a predetermined threshold, wherein when the determination unit determines that no has a degree of resolution that exceeds the predetermined threshold, the estimation unit estimates the degree of resolution for each combination of a plurality of cosmetic products.
Regarding claims 3-4, claim 3 recites wherein the estimation unit estimates the degree of resolution for each combination of a first cosmetic product and a second cosmetic product, the first cosmetic product being selected based on one of a purchase history and preference information on the user, the second cosmetic product being highly compatible with the first cosmetic product. Claim 4 similarly recites wherein the and the second cosmetic product that is highly compatible with the skin problem of the user.
The term “highly” in claims 3-4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites wherein when the presented cosmetic products include a cosmetic product that the user has purchased based on whether or not the cosmetic product that the user has purchased is included, this phrasing sets forth the scenario of when the presented cosmetic products include a cosmetic product that the user has purchased, while basing the scenario on whether or not the cosmetic product that the user has purchased is included. It is unclear how the condition can be that the product is “included” and be based on “whether or not” the product is included. More importantly, the second included seems to imply a group in which the (already included) product is a part of, but the claim does not specify any such group or relationship of the (already included) product. This phrasing is narrative in nature stemming from an apparent literal translation, and indefinite in nature. The Examiner suggests the following language for clarification:
wherein when the presented cosmetic products include a cosmetic product that the user has purchased .
Regarding claim 7, similar to claim 6 claim 7 recites wherein when the skin problem of the user is not continuous based on whether or not the skin problem of the user is continuous. The underlined phrasing is narrative in nature stemming from an apparent literal translation, and indefinite in nature. The underlined clause is redundant, and does not appear to set forth any further condition on which the scenario is based on. The Examiner suggests the following language for clarification:
wherein when the skin problem of the user is not continuous , the providing unit provides information for preferentially presenting one of a cosmetic product that is available for purchase within a predetermined price and a combination that includes the cosmetic product that is available for purchase within the predetermined price.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites wherein when an eigenvalue of a skin color of the user is not average based on whether or not the eigenvalue of the skin color of the user calculated based on comparison with other people is average. This phrasing is narrative in nature stemming from an apparent literal translation, and indefinite in nature.
The grammatical structure surrounding the term calculated lends itself to multiple interpretations. For example, the term calculated could refer back to the skin color of the user (i.e., the claim is stating that the eigenvalue has been calculated for the user, and will be compared). Alternatively, the claim could be stating that the term calculated indicates the skin color of the user is calculated based on comparison with other people is average (i.e., the calculation is performed based on the comparison). It is also unclear how the eigenvalue would be compared simply to other people rather than eigenvalues of other people/users. The Examiner suggests the following language for clarification:
wherein when an eigenvalue of a skin color of the user is not average based on wa comparison with an average of eigenvalues of skin colors of other users , the providing unit provides information for preferentially presenting one of a cosmetic product that matches the eigenvalue of the skin color of the user and a combination that includes the cosmetic product that matches the eigenvalue of the skin color of the user.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-10, under Step 2A claims 1-10 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites
estimates a degree of resolution of a skin problem of a user for each cosmetic product; and
provides information indicating a degree of resolution of a target cosmetic product based on the degree of resolution that is estimated by the estimation unit for each cosmetic product.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because the claim sets forth or describes providing an indication of the degree of resolution a target cosmetic product will have in relation to a skin problem of a user. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including an information processing apparatus including an estimation unit and a providing unit.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, dependent claims 2-9 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 2-9 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-9 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, claims 2-9 rely on at least the same highly-generalized additional elements of claim 1, while provide further additional elements (e.g., a determination unit – claim 2) that are also recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-9 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-9 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claim 9 (method) and claim 10 (non-transitory medium), claims 9-10 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claim 9-10 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Martinez (US 2024/0265533).
Regarding claim 1, Martinez teaches an information processing apparatus including:
an estimation unit that estimates a degree of resolution of a skin problem of a user for each cosmetic product (see: 0041 (expected or predicted impact on improving the score), 0042 (estimated change after application) 0055 (estimated change of the score after application)); and
Note: Martinez teaches an estimated change of the one or more scores after application of one or more recommended treatments. This corresponds to a degree of resolution.
a providing unit that provides information indicating a degree of resolution of a target cosmetic product based on the degree of resolution that is estimated by the estimation unit for each cosmetic product (see: 0042 (displays the estimated change), 0055 (estimated change in score after application is displayed), Fig. 3).
5. The information processing apparatus according to any one of claim 1, wherein the providing unit provides information for presenting cosmetic products in descending order of the degree of resolution that is estimated by the estimation unit (see: 0041 (ranked by their expected predicted impact), claim 9).
Regarding claim 9 (method) and claim 10 (non-transitory medium), claims 9-10 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claim 9-10 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez in view of Adiri (US 2021/0142890).
Regarding claim 2, Martinez discloses all of the above but does not teach a determination unit that determines whether or not a cosmetic present is present for which the degree of resolution that is estimated by the estimation unit exceeds a predetermined threshold, wherein when the determination unit determines that the cosmetic product is absent for which the degree of resolution exceeds the predetermined threshold, the estimation unit estimates the degree of resolution for each combination of a plurality of cosmetic products.
To this accord, Adiri teaches a system which determines a skin feature that is being medically treated, the system comprising a determination unit that determines whether or not a treatment for which the degree of resolution that is estimated by the estimation unit exceeds a predetermined threshold (see: 0070 (level of effectiveness of the medical treatment is below a threshold), 0089 (when effectiveness level is below a threshold), 0095, Fig. 7 (718)),
wherein when the determination unit determines that the treatment is absent for which the degree of resolution exceeds the predetermined threshold, the estimation unit estimates the degree of resolution for each combination of a plurality of cosmetic products (see: 0070 (determine an action to alter treatment and the level of the effectiveness), 0076 (determine a plurality of medical actions to be completed during a time period), 0089, Fig. 7 (720), Fig. 10 (1012-1014)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Martinez in view of Adiri to have utilized the known technique for examining treatments in relation to skin features as taught by Adiri in order to have provided new and improved ways for using personal communications devices for medical examination of skin features (see: Adiri: 0005), thereby improving the relevance of recommended cosmetics.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez in view of Adiri as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Peyrelevade (US 2003/0065636).
Regarding claim 3, Martinez teaches wherein the estimation unit estimates the degree of resolution for each combination of a first cosmetic product and a second cosmetic product, such as by estimating the impact multiple products have together on attractiveness or youthfulness score (see: 0055, 0067, Fig. 3). Similarly, Adiri teaches estimating the effectiveness level for each of an initial (first) treatment and an altered (second) treatment (see: 0070). The combination, however, does not teach that the first cosmetic product being selected based on one of a purchase history and preference information on the user, the second cosmetic product being highly compatible with the first cosmetic product.
To this accord, Peyrelevade teaches a system for recommending cosmetics in relation to body conditions such as skin tone, texture, type, etc. (see: abstract, 0040, Fig. 15-16), the system configured for assessing a combination of a first cosmetic product and second cosmetic product, including wherein the first cosmetic product being selected based on one of a purchase history and preference information on the user, the second cosmetic product being highly compatible with the first cosmetic product (see: 0049, 0083, 0088, Fig. 1B (130-150), Fig. 2 (confidential personal profile, complimentary products), Fig. 17 (user product selection, complementary products)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Martinez in view of Adiri to have utilized the known technique for assessing complementary cosmetic products as taught by Peyrelevade in order to have recommended complementary products as a function of prior product selections as well as personal characteristics of the consumer (see: Peyrelevade: 0037), thereby improving the relevance of recommended cosmetics.
4. The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the estimation unit estimates the degree of resolution for each combination of the first cosmetic product and the second cosmetic product that is highly compatible with the skin problem of the user (see: Peyrelevade: 0040, 0065, 0067, 0088, 0145, 0153, Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez in view of Guo (US 11,151,608).
Regarding claim 6, Martinez teaches all of the above but does not teach wherein when the presented cosmetic products include a cosmetic product that the user has purchased based on whether or not the cosmetic product that the user has purchased is included, the providing unit provides information for preferentially presenting one of the purchased cosmetic product and a combination that includes the purchased cosmetic product.
To this accord, Guo teaches a recommendation system configured for wherein when the presented cosmetic products include a cosmetic product that the user has purchased based on whether or not the cosmetic product that the user has purchased is included, the providing unit provides information for preferentially presenting one of the purchased cosmetic product and a combination that includes the purchased cosmetic product (see: Fig. 5, col. 2 line – col. 3 line 22 (emphasizing col. 3 lines 8-22), col. 14 lines 23-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Martinez have utilized the known technique for filtering recommendations as taught by Guo in order to have filtered out or included items based on their conceptual relatedness and not simply whether users have purchased them together, thereby improving recommendations by filtering out less relevant items and/or including more relevant items in recommendations (see: Guo: col. 13 lines 66-col. 14 line 2, col. 14 lines 25-28).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez in view of Yuan (US 2022/0253418).
Regarding claim 7, Martinez teaches all of the above as noted but does not teach wherein when the skin problem of the user is not continuous based on whether or not the skin problem of the user is continuous, the providing unit provides information for preferentially presenting one of a cosmetic product that is available for purchase within a predetermined price and a combination that includes the cosmetic product that is available for purchase within the predetermined price.
To this accord, Yuan teaches a recommendation system for skin treatments, the system configured for wherein when the skin problem of the user is not continuous based on whether or not the skin problem of the user is continuous (see: 0038, 0056, 0059, 0091 (note: acnes, oily, dryness, rosacea, eczema are all non-continuous conditions)), the providing unit provides information for preferentially presenting one of a cosmetic product that is available for purchase within a predetermined price and a combination that includes the cosmetic product that is available for purchase within the predetermined price (see: 0140 (recommendations may be based on user preferences for “price ranges”), 0125 (within price brackets), Fig. 7 (710), 0210, Fig. 9 (908), 0218).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Martinez have utilized the known technique for providing recommendations as taught by Yuan in order to have provided relevant recommendations that leveraged user preferences and information while maintaining privacy and information security for users (see: 0005, 0023).
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
As interpreted on page 9 above, claim 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Though not taught or rendered obvious over the prior art, claim 8 remains rejected on other grounds including 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112(b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Toumazou (US 20130023058) discloses a method of selecting a suitable skincare product including providing a numerical efficacy score of the product (see: 0081, 0097).
Tendulkar (US 20230074782) discloses a guided skincare consultation including “skin scores” used in provisioning product recommendations (see: Fig. 14A, AE-AF, B, D, R, S, U and V), as well as using context such as purchase histories and purchase trends when making recommendations (see: 0306, 0323, 0387, 0390, 0395).
Rubenstein (US 20030013994) discloses depicting predicted improvement of skin tone during a period of time of treatment (see: 0055, Fig. 2, Fig. 4, 0100).
Hayman (US 11160497) discloses a virtual skincare assessment (see: abstract, Fig. 3A-3C, Fig. 7).
PTO form 892-U discusses the online beauty platform Skin Allies, which provides consultation services for skin treatments and ingredients.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619