DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The Response filed 11/27/2025 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 4-9 are amended. Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the steps of receiving and storing rating information of service providers, receiving time/travel information from providers and compare the information to scheduled started time, determining a punctuality/timing rating, receiving a request for service, determining the characteristics of the request, and matching and assigning a provider to the request based on characteristics and ratings.
The limitations of receiving and storing rating information of service providers, receiving time/travel information from providers and compare the information to scheduled started time, determining a punctuality/timing rating, receiving a request for service, determining the characteristics of the request, and matching and assigning a provider to the request based on characteristics and ratings.as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processing device” language, “receiving” and “storing” in the context of this claim encompasses the a person reviewing or hearing information and memorizing. Similarly, the amended limitations of receiving GPS time, comparing the times with schedule, and determining a punctuality rating, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “processing device” language, these steps can be performed mentally by the person looking over received information on a computer, checking which providers can reach the location by the scheduled time (such as mentally thinking of which restaurant can deliver food by a certain time), and mentally thinking of a score based on which providers can reach the location by a particular time (such as giving scores based on dime differences). Similarly, the limitation of determining the characteristic and optimal service provider, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “processing device” language, “determining” and “assigning” in the context of this claim encompasses the person mentally identifying specific words and thinking about which service provider to select, and determining a specific provider to assign to the request. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of processing device executing stored instructions to perform the steps. The processor and computer readable medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer function of receiving information, comparing information, parsing information, and matching data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The medium and the database further perform well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of storing information. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims are further directed towards the judicial exception without significantly more. The dependent claims provide limitations on the types and definition of information (such as claims 2-9). These are still directed towards the judicial exception as these further define the abstract elements such as further defining the information and relationship between the information. They are not significantly more as they do not further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The dependent claims is not patent eligible.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Computer readable medium is not specifically defined in the claims and is defined in paragraph 16 of the originally filed specification as being “both storage media and communication” including “data in a modulated data signal such as a carrier wave”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a transitory wave can be considered to be a computer readable medium. As such, since the claims have failed to exclude transitory signals as being media, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been provided. In other to remedy the reject, the Examiner suggests amending the claims to disclose that the computer program product is stored on a non-transitory storage medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarney et al. (US 20110137730 A1) (hereafter McCarney), in view of Dicker et al. (US 20170352125 A1) (hereafter Dicker).
As per claim 1:
At least one tangible, non-transient computer-readable medium on which are stored instructions that, when executed by one or more processing devices, enable the one or more processing devices to perform a method comprising;
receiving and storing in a database respective rating of the performance of a service by each of a plurality of service provider; (See McCarney ¶0026, “A method of matching in an intermediary matching system, comprising: storing a plurality of buyer profiles and a plurality of service provider profiles corresponding to mobile providers; tracking in the computer system the location of one or more mobile providers based on real-time location information or planned-location information; and outputting from the computer system one or more notifications to mobile providers of searcher leads in a predetermined proximity of the mobile providers current position or planned position based on attributes in a buyer profile and/or service provider profile.” McCarney discloses the concept of receiving and storing information associated with service providers. See also McCarney ¶0306, “Service attributes, also known as searcher provided ratings, are gathered from the searcher. FIG. 31 shows possible user interface for assessing whether suppliers have contacted a searcher. If enough providers have contacted a searcher, meaningful information about the progress of a job may be gathered in later steps. If enough providers have not contacted a searcher, a followup communication may be issued to the provider or the provider's timeliness service attribute may be decreased.” McCarney discloses the provider information to include rating of performance.)
receiving, from a first party, a request for performance of the service at a location;
determining characteristics defining the request;
(See McCarney ¶0051, “While there are known systems that help searchers match goods offered by merchants, the inventive subject matter advantageously provides improved systems for efficient matching. In some embodiments, the inventive subject matter provides for determining and assigning a party to a Buyer Type based on acquiring relatively limited information about a party through an initial questionnaire, for example. For each Buyer Type, there are a set of attributes, which may be weighted or unweighted, and assumed or assigned to be of importance to the party in matching to job, project or other subject of a search. The Buyer Type's assigned set of weighted or unweighted attributes allow creation of an initial profile for the party. On subsequent use of the system, a party's profile may be refined according to further information. For example, the profile may be refined based on the actual experiences of a party with service providers, such as may be collected and stored using post-transaction surveys with a party. The profile may also be updated according to information obtained from third parties. For example, third party evaluators may include credit agencies that rate searchers and service providers; accreditation agencies; licensing entities; independent rating services; public forums, etc.” McCarney discloses the concept of receiving a request for services and determining the characteristics for the request.)
based on the performance rating, the determined punctuality rating, and the characteristics defining the request, determining the optimal service provider of the plurality of service providers to fulfill the request; and
assigning the determined optimal service provider to fulfill the request.
(See McCarney ¶0092, “During the matching step 7, a series of business rules for a particular vertical, the industry matching rule set 8, coupled with the registration data 3 captured during the registration process and the supplier inventory 9, determines which providers are suitable for matching and constructs an initial match set of suppliers with supplier attributes 10. Any provider is willing to receive leads for a particular job may be matched to that job.” McCarney discloses the concept of matching the request with optimal service provider and assigning the service provider for fulfillment of the request.)
Although McCarney discloses the above-enclosed invention including utilizing provider location information, McCarney fails to explicitly teach the concept of determining a punctuality rating.
However Dicker as shown, which talks about hierarchical selection of providers to respond to a scheduled request, teaches the concept of ranking/rating providers based on provider location and timing relative to a scheduled request for service.
receiving, from a respective GPS enabled mobile device of each of the plurality of service providers, one or more GPS times at which the service provider arrives at a respective service site to perform the service; (See Dicker ¶0032, “Specifically, the network system 100 can include a selection engine 135 which can process the transport request 197 to determine a set of proximate available transport providers utilizing the start location and the locations of transport providers 181 operating throughout the given region. The scheduling engine 135 can receive the provider locations 181 utilizing the location based resources (e.g., GPS resources) of the driver devices 188. Thus, for on-demand ride services, the network system 100 can determine a set of proximate available transport providers in relation to the start location included in the transport request 197, and generate and transmit transport invitations or directives 182 to optimal transport providers or SDVs (e.g., a closest driver or SDV in relation to the start location). As described herein, the transport provider can input an acceptance 183 of the transport invitation 182 via the designated provider application 187 and thus drive to the start location to rendezvous with the requesting user. For SDV implementations, the transport invitation 182 may be in the form of a directive instructing the SDV 189 to autonomously drive to the start location to rendezvous with the requesting user.” See also Dicker ¶0043, “If the claimant transport provider is available and online, then the transport coordination system 100 can transmit a confirmation request to the provider device 188 of the claimant transport provider to confirm that the claimant transport provider will service the scheduled transport request 198. The network system 100 can then monitor the progress of the claimant transport provider to ensure that the scheduled transport request 198 is fulfilled. However, at the predetermined decouple time, if the claimant transport provider is not available, then the network system 100 can decouple or otherwise disassociate the claimant transport provider from the scheduled transport request 198 and perform a standard on-demand matching and selection process (e.g., a default selection process based on location and/or estimated time of arrival of a candidate set of drivers from the start location). Accordingly, initially providing the claim offer 186 for the scheduled transport request 198 and including a set of fall back options (e.g., failing over to the default selection process, and/or a different transport service option) can comprise a hierarchical selection process implemented by the network system 100, as described herein.” Dicker teaches the concept of receiving GPS location information from providers including estimated time of arrival to the service request location.)
comparing, for each of the plurality of service providers, the one or more GPS times with a corresponding one or more scheduled start times of the service at the respective service site;
determining, in response to the comparing, a respective punctuality rating for each of the plurality of service providers;
(See Dicker ¶0045, “Furthermore, the scheduling engine 140 can generate triggers 144 for the selection engine 135 to initiate a search of proximate available transport providers (e.g., of the transport service type indicated in the scheduled transport request 198) in relation to the scheduled start location. For example, thirty minutes prior to the scheduled start time, the selection engine 135 can be triggered to filter the available transport providers 185 based on the requested service type, utilize the provider locations 181 of matching service type vehicles to identify a number of candidate transport providers proximate to the start location, and utilize map data 179 and/or traffic data 177 from the mapping engine 175 to estimate a time of arrival for each of the candidate transport providers. In one aspect, the selection engine 135 can continue to monitor the ETA information for all available transport providers entering a geo-fenced area—generated by the selection engine 135 to surround the start location—up until the ETA information for a current candidate set of available transport providers substantially correlates to the time delta to the scheduled start time. In variations, the selection engine 135 can identify that sufficient supply exists (e.g., more than five available vehicles within a ten minute ETA of the start location), and can place the search on standby for the next time trigger 144 from the scheduling engine 140. Such triggers 144 may be initiated by the scheduling engine 140 in accordance with a trigger schedule, such as every five minutes.” See also Dicker ¶0075, “As each scheduled transport request 198 approaches, the network system 100 can periodically check ETA data of proximate transport providers in relation to the start location to gauge transport supply (520). The ETA data can comprise estimated arrival time information of proximate available drivers (521) and/or SDVs (523) of the specified transport service type indicated in the scheduled transport request 198. Accordingly, the network system 100 may determine whether the ETA data of the drivers and/or SDVs correlate with the time delta to the start time (525). If not (527) (e.g., if there is a surplus of transport supply within a time-based or location-based geo-fence around the start location), then the network system 100 can place the scheduled transport request 198 on standby and check again in the near future (e.g., every two minutes) (520). However, if so (529) (e.g., if the ETA time for one or more transport providers is within a certain range of the time delta to the start time), then the network system 100 can generate and transmit one or more transport invitations 182 to the one or more proximate drivers or SDVs (530), which can accept or decline the transport invitations 182 accordingly. As provided herein, a first accepting transport provider (whether driver or SDV) can comprise an optimal transport providers to service the scheduled transport request 198.” Dicker teaches the concept of comparing provider location/travel time to scheduled request for service and determining optimal provider including identifying multiple providers and optimal providers by ordering the providers.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the teachings of Dicker with the invention of McCarney. As shown, McCarney discloses the concept of optimizing the matching of service provider to service requester based on a number of factors including utilizing location, ratings, and preferences. Dicker further teaches the concept of utilizing travel time of the provider to and scheduled time. Dicker teaches this concept to further allow for the scheduling of services by providers and service locations of a requester while still optimizing provider selection and providing timely service (See Dicker ¶0013). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the teachings of Dicker to further optimize provider selection for scheduled future service requests.
As per claim 2:
The medium of claim 1. wherein the characteristics comprise one or more textual keywords. (See McCarney ¶0124, “Attributes may be based on any number of objective or subjective factors, as illustrated below. Furthermore, attributes may be based on tangible criteria, intangible criteria of an intangible entity, or intangible criteria of a tangible entity. In the ranking context, attributes are used as inputs for match rules. Attributes may be inferred from the searcher's textual input. One embodiment performs a keyword search of text to locate keywords associated with particular attributes. For example, a searcher's use of the word "rental" might indicate that the house is not owner-occupied, signaling that the owner-occupied attribute is false. Subsequently, a match rule which tests if owner-occupied attribute is false would trigger. Another embodiment uses the natural language processing may attempt to infer the tone or emotional content of text.” McCarney discloses the concept of the characteristics to include extracted text keywords.)
As per claim 4:
The medium of claim 1. wherein the determining the optimal service provider comprises determining the optimal service provide based on geographic locations of the plurality of service providers. (See McCarney ¶0099, “In addition, match rules should have the ability to create ranking attributes and assign them to a particular lead. For instance, a match rule that adds to the match set any providers that live within a 30 km radius of the job location might also create an attribute "Distance score" that is the actual distance between the provider and the job location. This distance attribute could then be used to rank nearby providers more highly than distant ones.” McCarney discloses the concept of determining matching based on geographic location.)
As per claim 5:
The medium of claim 1. wherein the determining the optimal service provider comprising determining the optimal service provider based on a respective geographic location of an area in which each of the plurality of service provider is willing to fulfill the request. (See McCarney ¶0289-¶0291, “A service provider (which may also be referred to as a "provider") registers with the matching service offered by an intermediary party 309, using, for example, an online form. The form has the following two qualifying matching elements that can be mapped to those used with the searchers:
Capability Questions: These questions are generally specific to each vertical and relate to these primary areas:
Job Location.” McCarney discloses the concept of matching to include determining a locations in which the service provider provide services.)
As per claim 7:
The medium of claim 1, wherein the determining the optimal service provider comprises determining the optimal service provider based on a respective estimated drive time for each the plurality of service providers to the location at which a service provider is to perform the requested service. (See Dicker ¶0045, “Furthermore, the scheduling engine 140 can generate triggers 144 for the selection engine 135 to initiate a search of proximate available transport providers (e.g., of the transport service type indicated in the scheduled transport request 198) in relation to the scheduled start location. For example, thirty minutes prior to the scheduled start time, the selection engine 135 can be triggered to filter the available transport providers 185 based on the requested service type, utilize the provider locations 181 of matching service type vehicles to identify a number of candidate transport providers proximate to the start location, and utilize map data 179 and/or traffic data 177 from the mapping engine 175 to estimate a time of arrival for each of the candidate transport providers.” Dicker teaches the concept of determining optimal provider based on travel time to a service location for each provider.)
As per claim 8:
The medium of claim 1, wherein determining the optimal service provider comprises determining the optimal service provider based on respective projected traffic patterns proximal to a respective location of each of the plurality of service providers. (See Dicker ¶0045, “Furthermore, the scheduling engine 140 can generate triggers 144 for the selection engine 135 to initiate a search of proximate available transport providers (e.g., of the transport service type indicated in the scheduled transport request 198) in relation to the scheduled start location. For example, thirty minutes prior to the scheduled start time, the selection engine 135 can be triggered to filter the available transport providers 185 based on the requested service type, utilize the provider locations 181 of matching service type vehicles to identify a number of candidate transport providers proximate to the start location, and utilize map data 179 and/or traffic data 177 from the mapping engine 175 to estimate a time of arrival for each of the candidate transport providers.” Dicker teaches the concept of determining optimal provider based on travel time to a service location for each provider including traffic information.)
As per claim 9:
The medium of claim 1. wherein the respective performance ratings for each of the plurality of service provider are based on a respective customer rating of the service provider. (See McCarney ¶0306, “Service attributes, also known as searcher provided ratings, are gathered from the searcher. FIG. 31 shows possible user interface for assessing whether suppliers have contacted a searcher. If enough providers have contacted a searcher, meaningful information about the progress of a job may be gathered in later steps. If enough providers have not contacted a searcher, a followup communication may be issued to the provider or the provider's timeliness service attribute may be decreased.” McCarney discloses matching based on customer rating.)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarney et al. (US 20110137730 A1) (hereafter McCarney), in view of Dicker et al. (US 20170352125 A1) (hereafter Dicker), in view of Carlisle et al. (US 20180349485 A1) (hereafter Carlisle).
As per claim 3:
Although the combination of McCarney and Dicker discloses the above-enclosed invention, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the characteristics to be spoken words.
However Carlisle as shown, which talks about a graphical user interface for social networks, teaches the concept of utilizing speech based inputs.
The medium of claim 1. wherein the characteristics comprise one or more spoken word. (See Carlisle ¶0064, “In addition, any of the user operations described herein, including the selection of links or list or menu options, text input (e.g., search terms), navigation (e.g., scrolling, transitioning between screens, etc.), and/or the like, may be performed via voice input. For example, user system 130 (e.g., via client application 132, the operating system, or some other software) may receive a speech input via a microphone of user system 130, convert the speech input to a text representation via well-known speech-to-text processes, and provide the text representation to the application or a function within the application as a text input. If the context of the voice input is a text-based input (e.g., a focus within the graphical user interface is currently on a textbox input), the application may insert the text representation into the text-based input (e.g., search input 306). On the other hand, if the context of the voice input is not a text-based input, the application may match the text representation to a command (e.g., the name of a particular screen to which the application should transition, a navigation direction, etc.), and execute the matched command.” Carlisle teaches the concept of receiving and utilizing spoken inputs.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized the teachings of Carlisle with the combination of McCarney and Dicker. As shown, the combination discloses the concept of receiving user inputs including characteristics/criteria for the requested service including voice inputs. Carlisle further teaches that it is old and well known to further utilize speech inputs including utilizing speech inputs for text including unstructured voice inputs. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized the teachings of Carlisle with the invention McCarney as Carlisle teaches that it is old and well known to further include speech inputs as an input method for a computer system.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarney et al. (US 20110137730 A1) (hereafter McCarney), in view of Dicker et al. (US 20170352125 A1) (hereafter Dicker), in view of Koby et al. (US 20150012377 A1) (hereafter Koby).
As per claim 6:
Although the combination of McCarney and Dicker discloses the above-enclosed invention, the combination fails to explicitly disclose matching contractors based on cost of supplies.
However Koby as shown, which talks about comparative display of service offerings, teaches the concept of matching providers based on cost of supplies.
The medium of claim 1, wherein determining the optimal service provider comprises determining the optimal service provider based on a location of the requested service or on a cost of supplies required to perform the requested service. (See Koby ¶0017, “Because of these and other problems in the art, described herein, among other things, is a method for comparatively displaying quotes comprising: providing a database; providing a quote server communicatively connected to a client device over a network, the quote server comprising a microprocessor and a non-volatile computer-readable medium having computer readable instructions stored thereon, the computer-readable instructions comprising a quote module; storing normalized quote metric data in the database; the quote server receiving from the client device over the network a customer project criteria dataset comprising at least one measurement of a dimension for a home improvement project and an indication of at least one material to be used in a home improvement project, the amount of the material to be used in the home improvement project being based at least in part on the at least one measurement of a dimension; the quote module selecting from the stored normalized quote metric a search result dataset, the selection of the search result database being based at least in part on the received customer project criteria dataset and comprising data indicative of a plurality of service providers, each service provider in the plurality of service providers being associated in the stored normalized quote metric data with the material; for each one of the service providers in the plurality of service providers, the quote module calculating a bid estimate for the service provider to install the material in the home improvement project, the calculated bid estimate being based at least in part on a cost of the material indicated in the stored normalized dataset for the service provider, and the calculated bid estimate being based at least in part on the measurement of a dimension received by the quote server; the quote server transmitting data to the client device, the transmitted data causing to be displayed on the client device, for each one of the service providers in the plurality of service providers, an identification of the service provider indicated in the stored normalized dataset and the calculated bid estimate for the service provider.” Koby teaches the concept of further accounting for cost of supplies for fulfilling a request.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized the teachings of Koby with the combination of McCarney an Dicker. As shown, the combination discloses the concept of searching and matching service providers to requesters based on requested tasks and matching criteria. Koby further teaches the concept of further account for cost information including material costs. Koby teaches this concept as the cost of materials and labor vary, and as such, is challenging for requesters to determine a matching provider (See Koby ¶0008-¶0014). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized the teachings of Koby to further optimize the matching of requesters and providers by further accounting for a price/cost factor, thereby providing the requester with relevant providers and overcoming the existing shortcomings in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments as directed towards the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that although the independent claims have been amended, this is still directed towards a judicial exception without significantly more as further clarified above. Although the invention further recites the concept of receiving GPS time/information from a mobile device, this is still directed towards the receiving and analysis of information, and as discussed in Electric Power Group, receiving information, even from electronic devices/sources, is not considered significantly more. As such, the Examiner asserts the amended claimed invention is directed towards a judicial exception without significantly more and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kumar (US 10600105 B1), which talks about assigning service providers based on custom criteria including determining arrival time of the provider.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT M CAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11-7.
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 at (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.
/VINCENT M CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622