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 the Application
This non-final office action is in response to the communication on 11/7/2025 in which Applicant elected claims 19-36 and 38 without traverse. Claim 37 has been withdrawn. Claims 19-36 and 38 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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 19-36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, independent claim 19 recites specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) as follows:
receiving one or more advertisements from one or more advertisement sources, the one or more advertisements being communicated to a first user/reader based on first user/reader profile data collected by an advertisement publicist;
selecting a preferred advertisement from the received one or more advertisements and viewing the preferred advertisement for a predetermined time;
providing a rating to the preferred advertisement after viewing for the predetermined time; and
receiving a financial compensation after rating the viewed advertisement communicated to a first user/reader based on first user/reader profile data collected by an advertisement publicist.
As noted above, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e., 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); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). That is, the limitations describe a process of providing targeted advertisement based on user profiles, receiving advertisements ratings from users who watch advertisements for a predetermined amount of time, and providing financial compensation to users for rating advertisements. This is both an advertising activity (i.e., providing profile based targeted ads) and a commercial interaction (i.e. compensating users for viewing and rating ads). Accordingly claim 19 recites an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 19 recites the additional limitations of:
[receiving the one or more advertisements] on a first user/reader electronic device [from] a proprietary database electronically communicated thereto
[an advertisement publicist] operably connected to the proprietary database;
The additional limitations when viewed individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because each of the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it) or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Specifically, the use of a generic user/reader electronic device such a generic smartphone to display received advertisements and a proprietary database to store advertisements merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or merely utilizes a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it) or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception in a particular technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 20-36 and 38 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of independent claim 19 without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more. Specifically, the additional limitations in 20-36 and 38 merely further limit the abstract idea or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 19, 26-30, 33-35, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20120316969 (“Metcalf”) in view of US Patent Publication Number 8595064 (“Hagy”).
Claim 19
As per claim 19, Metcalf teaches a system for a computer-implemented method for monetizing advertisement views, the system comprising a processor located on a computer and configured to initiate the following method steps:
on a first user/reader electronic device, receiving one or more advertisements at a proprietary database electronically communicated thereto from one or more advertisement sources, the one or more advertisements being electronically communicated to a first user/reader based on first user/reader profile data collected by an advertisement publicist operably connected to the proprietary database ([0044] “The advertiser client may create, edit or delete the advertiser data associated with advertiser profiles in the database or they may upload videos or other ad content for retrievable storage in the advertisements database.” Examiner interprets the advertisements database as the proprietary database and the plurality of advertisers that upload advertisements to the database as one or more advertisement sources. And, [0008] “comparing information associated with a viewer profile of the viewer to information associated with a plurality of advertisements, selecting one or more mandatory advertisements from among the plurality of advertisements based on the data set, populating a viewer queue with the one or more mandatory advertisements, and delivering the one or more mandatory advertisements.” And, [0076] “The server may provide an interface to other devices.” And, [0018] “executed on one or more computing devices such as a computer, a PDA, a cell phone.”);
selecting a preferred advertisement from the received one or more advertisements ([0058] “the viewer may . . . select any advertisement for retrieval.” And, [0009] “a preference demographic scalar, and be compared against an advertisement scalar associated with the advertisements” and [0052] “scalar associated with the viewer profile may be compared with the humor scalar generated by the system and associated with various advertisements, and the preferred match may be determined and displayed.”);
providing a rating to the preferred advertisement ([0062] “The viewer is presented with a series of rating options relating to the advertisement . . . [t]he viewer may rate the advertisement as a whole, selecting from ratings such as: bad, indifferent, good, or great . . . The system updates the viewer profile and the advertisement data for additional processing according to viewer's rating.” And, [0012] “receiving a rating on the first.”);
receiving a financial compensation after rating the viewed advertisement ([0062] “the option to rate the advertisement is incentivized.” And, [0072] “calculates the compensation due if the viewing was within the advertisement parameters and increments the viewer account balance . . . the advertisement must be watched for compensation to be awarded, such as a requirement to interact with the advertisement at certain times within its display to ensure attentiveness.” And, [0067] “data collected and retrievably stored over time relating to the viewer's interactions with the system. The data is parsed and the viewer's past ratings . . . are analyzed with data relating to advertisement products and advertisement content that the viewer previously acted upon.”).
Metcalf discloses “advertisement must be watched for compensation to be awarded, such as a requirement to interact with the advertisement at certain times within its display” (paragraph [0072]) but does not explicitly teach the following features taught by Hagy;
viewing the preferred advertisement for a predetermined time (Hagy [col. 9, liens 10-20] “a threshold amount of digital content has been engaged within the scope of the reward criteria. The same idea may apply for financial instruments as well, such as where a predetermined amount of digital content must be engaged, or for a predetermined amount of time.” And, [col. 12, lines 67 – col. 13, line 7] “the host system may detect completion of the engagement by tracking the user's actions and/or where for example a predetermined amount of time has elapsed.”);
Metcalf discloses “the viewer may rate the advertisement” (paragraph [0062]) but does not explicitly teach the following features taught by Hagy;
[providing a rating to the preferred advertisement] after viewing for the predetermined time ([col. 12, lines 67 – col. 13, line 7] “the host system may detect completion of the engagement by tracking the user's actions and/or where for example a predetermined amount of time has elapsed.” [col. 2, lines 7-12] And, “tools can be applied . . . after the video is completed: Multiple Choice questions, a Ranking Meter (with various subset tools available).” And, [col. 8, lines 67 – col. 9, line 2] “the primary motivation for the content provider to provide the rewards is to obtain feedback.” And, [col. 1, line 65 – col. 2, line 3] “[t]he viewer is rewarded, and the content provider receives easily-configurable, customizable creative feedback with substantially real-time data reporting.” Examiner interprets multiple choice questions about a video, a ranking meter about a video, and feedback about a video as various forms of ratings which are provided after the predetermined amount of time has elapsed.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s claimed invention to modify Metcalf to include viewing the preferred advertisement for a predetermined time and [providing a rating to the preferred advertisement] after viewing for the predetermined time as taught by Hagy so that [t]he viewer is rewarded, and the content provider receives easily-configurable, customizable creative feedback with substantially real-time data reporting” (resulting in increased user engagement (Hagy [col. 1, line 65 – col. 2, line 3]).
Claim 26
As per claim 26, Metcalf further teaches:
which the advertisement publicist either pushes or suggests the preferred advertisement to the first user/reader, or the first user/reader selects the preferred advertisement based on predetermined interests from a publicist web portal or a system operator algorithm ([0008] “comparing information associated with a viewer profile of the viewer to information associated with a plurality of advertisements, selecting one or more mandatory advertisements from among the plurality of advertisements based on the data set, populating a viewer queue with the one or more mandatory advertisements, and delivering the one or more mandatory advertisements.” And, [0058] “the viewer may . . . select any advertisement for retrieval.” And, [0009] “a preference demographic scalar, and be compared against an advertisement scalar associated with the advertisements” and [0052] “scalar associated with the viewer profile may be compared with the humor scalar generated by the system and associated with various advertisements, and the preferred match may be determined and displayed.”).
Claim 27
As per claim 27, Metcalf further teaches:
in which the advertisement publicist publishes the advertisements for the first user/reader targeting the first user/reader according to collected profile information and preferences, and in a desired location or region ([0009] “The advertisements might also be associated with parameters for comparison against the viewer profile, such as parameters requiring viewers to be within a certain geographic zone.” And, [0008] “comparing information associated with a viewer profile of the viewer to information associated with a plurality of advertisements, selecting one or more mandatory advertisements from among the plurality of advertisements based on the data set, populating a viewer queue with the one or more mandatory advertisements, and delivering the one or more mandatory advertisements.” And, [0058] “the viewer may . . . select any advertisement for retrieval.” And, [0009] “a preference demographic scalar, and be compared against an advertisement scalar associated with the advertisements” and [0052] “scalar associated with the viewer profile may be compared with the humor scalar generated by the system and associated with various advertisements, and the preferred match may be determined and displayed.”).
Claim 28
As per claim 28, Metcalf further teaches:
in which the first user/reader receives the financial compensation for having viewed the preferred advertisement that is aligned with the first user/reader interest ([0062] “the option to rate the advertisement is incentivized.” And, [0072] “calculates the compensation due if the viewing was within the advertisement parameters and increments the viewer account balance . . . the advertisement must be watched for compensation to be awarded, such as a requirement to interact with the advertisement at certain times within its display to ensure attentiveness.” And, [0067] “data collected and retrievably stored over time relating to the viewer's interactions with the system. The data is parsed and the viewer's past ratings . . . are analyzed with data relating to advertisement products and advertisement content that the viewer previously acted upon.”).
Claim 29
As per claim 29, Metcalf further teaches:
in which the first user/reader is unknown to the advertisement publicist ([0044] “The advertiser client may create, edit or delete the advertiser data associated with advertiser profiles in the database or they may upload videos or other ad content for retrievable storage in the advertisements database.” Examiner notes that when the advertiser uploads advertisements, the user/reader is unknown).
Claim 30
As per claim 30, Metcalf further teaches:
in which the first user/reader receives the financial compensation via a bank transfer ([0044] “The advertiser enters its financial information, such as tax identification numbers, bank account information, online payment systems, such as that provided under the trademark PAYPAL®, account preferences, and payment preferences. Using the advertiser provided financial information, the system may effect an initial monetary transfer from the advertiser's account.” And, [0038] “The viewer also inputs financial information in order to enable the system to complete monetary transfers and tax reporting 105. This can include information such as tax identification numbers, bank account information.”).
Claim 33
As per claim 33, Metcalf further teaches:
in which the one or more advertisement sources includes first, second and third sources ([0044] “The advertiser client may create, edit or delete the advertiser data associated with advertiser profiles in the database or they may upload videos or other ad content for retrievable storage in the advertisements database.” Examiner interprets the various advertisers as first, second, and third sources. And, [0008] “comparing information associated with a viewer profile of the viewer to information associated with a plurality of advertisements, selecting one or more mandatory advertisements from among the plurality of advertisements based on the data set, populating a viewer queue with the one or more mandatory advertisements, and delivering the one or more mandatory advertisements.”).
Claim 34
As per claim 34, Metcalf further teaches:
in which the first source is a sub-database located in the proprietary database, the sub-database includes advertisers who have stored the advertisements, videos and static images on the proprietary database ([0044] “The advertiser client may create, edit or delete the advertiser data associated with advertiser profiles in the database or they may upload videos or other ad content for retrievable storage in the advertisements database.” Examiner interprets the advertisements database as the proprietary database and the plurality of advertisers that upload advertisements to the database as one or more advertisement sources. And, [0008] “comparing information associated with a viewer profile of the viewer to information associated with a plurality of advertisements, selecting one or more mandatory advertisements from among the plurality of advertisements based on the data set, populating a viewer queue with the one or more mandatory advertisements, and delivering the one or more mandatory advertisements.” And, [0076] “The server may provide an interface to other devices.” And, [0018] “executed on one or more computing devices such as a computer, a PDA, a cell phone.”).
Claim 35
As per claim 35, Metcalf further teaches:
in which the second source includes a third-party database connected to the proprietary database ([0044] “The advertiser client may create, edit or delete the advertiser data associated with advertiser profiles in the database or they may upload videos or other ad content for retrievable storage in the advertisements database.” Examiner interprets the advertisements database as the proprietary database and the plurality of advertisers that upload advertisements to the database as one or more advertisement sources. And, [0008] “comparing information associated with a viewer profile of the viewer to information associated with a plurality of advertisements, selecting one or more mandatory advertisements from among the plurality of advertisements based on the data set, populating a viewer queue with the one or more mandatory advertisements, and delivering the one or more mandatory advertisements.” And, [0076] “The server may provide an interface to other devices.” And, [0018] “executed on one or more computing devices such as a computer, a PDA, a cell phone.”).
Claim 38
As per claim 38, Metcalf further teaches:
in which the preferred advertisement is a poster, the predetermined time being zero ([0062] “The viewer is presented with a series of rating options relating to the advertisement . . . [t]he viewer may rate the advertisement as a whole, selecting from ratings such as: bad, indifferent, good, or great . . . The system updates the viewer profile and the advertisement data for additional processing according to viewer's rating.” And, [0012] “receiving a rating on the first.”).
Claims 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20120316969 (“Metcalf”) in view of US Patent Publication Number 8595064 (“Hagy”) as applied to claim 19 above, an in further view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20240361835 (“Hylak”).
Claim 20
As per claim 20, Metcalf does not explicitly teach but Hylak teaches:
the predetermined time is no less than one second ([0045] “Customers may then review the advertisers communication and choose whether or not to respond to the advertiser's call. Next, at step 80, after a predetermined period of time, the user is prompted to rate the advertisers.” Examiner interprets a predetermined amount of time to encompass any arbitrary amount of time including time greater than one second).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the combination of Metcalf and Hagy to include the predetermined time is no less than one second as taught by Hylak in order to “enhance[] attraction to online content and provide[] online publishers with increased revenue generating opportunities” (Hylak [0007]).
Claim 21
As per claim 21, Metcalf does not explicitly teach but Hylak teaches:
in which the predetermined time is up to one minute ([0045] “Customers may then review the advertisers communication and choose whether or not to respond to the advertiser's call. Next, at step 80, after a predetermined period of time, the user is prompted to rate the advertisers.” Examiner interprets a predetermined amount of time to encompass any arbitrary amount of time including time up to one minute).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the combination of Metcalf and Hagy to include in which the predetermined time is up to one minute as taught by Hylak in order to “enhance[] attraction to online content and provide[] online publishers with increased revenue generating opportunities” (Hylak [0007]).
Claim 22
As per claim 22, Metcalf does not explicitly teach but Hylak teaches:
in which the predetermined time is between three to five seconds ([0045] “Customers may then review the advertisers communication and choose whether or not to respond to the advertiser's call. Next, at step 80, after a predetermined period of time, the user is prompted to rate the advertisers.” Examiner interprets a predetermined amount of time to encompass any arbitrary amount of time including time between three to five seconds).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the combination of Metcalf, Hagy, and Hylak to include in which the predetermined time is between three to five seconds as taught by Hylak in order to “enhance[] attraction to online content and provide[] online publishers with increased revenue generating opportunities” (Hylak [0007]).
Claim 23
As per claim 23, Metcalf does not explicitly teach but Hylak teaches:
in which the predetermined time is up to three seconds ([0045] “Customers may then review the advertisers communication and choose whether or not to respond to the advertiser's call. Next, at step 80, after a predetermined period of time, the user is prompted to rate the advertisers.” Examiner interprets a predetermined amount of time to encompass any arbitrary amount of time including time between three to five seconds).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the combination of Metcalf, Hagy, and Hylak to include in which the predetermined time is up to three seconds as taught by Hylak in order to “enhance[] attraction to online content and provide[] online publishers with increased revenue generating opportunities” (Hylak [0007]).
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20120316969 (“Metcalf”) in view of US Patent Publication Number 8595064 (“Hagy”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20240361835 (“Hylak”).as applied to claim 21 above, an in further view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20160037197 (“Kitts”).
Claim 24
As per claim 24, Metcalf does not explicitly teach but Kitts teaches:
in which the first user/reader rates the selected preferred advertisement using a star rating system ([0168] “Star ratings are a convenient notation for indicating how good or bad a particular campaign is performing. In general, star ratings are a 5 star scale, where each star is equal to a 20th percentile.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the combination of Metcalf, Hagy, and Hylak to include in which the first user/reader rates the selected preferred advertisement using a star rating system as taught by Kitts because “[s]tar ratings are a convenient notation for indicating how good or bad a particular campaign is performing” (Kitts [0024]).
Claim 25
As per claim 25, Metcalf does not explicitly teach but Kitts teaches:
the star rating system is zero stars, which indicates the lowest rating, up to five stars, which indicates the highest rating ([0168] “Star ratings are a convenient notation for indicating how good or bad a particular campaign is performing. In general, star ratings are a 5 star scale, where each star is equal to a 20th percentile.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the combination of Metcalf, Hagy, Hylak, and Kitts to include the star rating system is zero stars, which indicates the lowest rating, up to five stars, which indicates the highest rating as taught by Kitts because “[s]tar ratings are a convenient notation for indicating how good or bad a particular campaign is performing” (Kitts [0024])
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20120316969 (“Metcalf”) in view of US Patent Publication Number 8595064 (“Hagy”) as applied to claim 19 above, an in further view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20200134676 (“Khalil”)
Claim 31
As per claim 31, Metcalf does not explicitly teach but Khalil teaches:
in which the advertisement publicist accesses the system via a web portal ([0019] “A web portal may be accessible to advertiser users to upload advertisements and/or other content for advertising campaigns to a content server.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the combination of Metcalf and Hagy to include in which the advertisement publicist accesses the system via a web portal as taught by Khalil in order to “facilitate user interaction for entering and/or selecting campaign values” (Khalil [0068]).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20120316969 (“Metcalf”) in view of US Patent Publication Number 8595064 (“Hagy”) as applied to claim 19 above, an in further view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20210224858 (“Khoury”)
Claim 32
As per claim 32, Metcalf does not explicitly teach but Khoury teaches:
the advertisement publicist is in contact with one or more primary advertisers, who monitor
effectiveness, reach and typical profile of the one or more advertisements by way of one or more website dashboards ([0163] “top performing creatives, such as with respect to one or more of impressions, conversions, engagements, reach, lead generations, and the like, can be tracked, monitored, and used in the building of new advertisements.” And, [0161] “these various analytics may be generated and displayed, e.g., at the dashboard viewer.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the combination of Metcalf and Hagy to include the advertisement publicist is in contact with one or more primary advertisers, who monitor effectiveness, reach and typical profile of the one or more advertisements by way of one or more website dashboards as taught by Khoury in order “to make one or more recommendations of how to better effectuate and/or meet one or more determined campaign objectives” (Khoury [0111]).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20120316969 (“Metcalf”) in view of US Patent Publication Number 8595064 (“Hagy”) as applied to claim 33 above, an in further view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20160277812 (“Bokowski”).
Claim 36
As per claim 36, Metcalf does not explicitly teach but Bokowski teaches:
in which the third source includes pictures of the advertisements captured at a physical location ([0036] “Camera device may be configured to take pictures or photos of the display device when ads or advertisements appear. Each photo taken by the camera device may be triggered by a changing ad or advertisement.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the combination of Metcalf and Hagy to include in which the third source includes pictures of the advertisements captured at a physical location as taught by Bokowski in order “allow tracking of ads and advertisements in order to generate performance reports for validation that the ad or advertisement was actually displayed as promised” (Bokowski [0036]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication Number 20090125719 (“Cochran”) discloses an advertiser may specify that if a browser spends less than a certain amount of time (e.g., 10 seconds) viewing an advertiser's web content then the advertiser should not be charged for that click
US Patent Application Publication Number 20070156838 (“Kocho”) discloses determining that a user watches or interacts with content for a predetermined amount of time
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II whose telephone number is (571)272-6904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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.
/ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622