DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendment/remarks filed 04 December 2025.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-19 have been amended. Claim 20 has been added.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 .
Response to Amendment/Remarks
The objection to the drawings have been remedied by amendment of the drawings and is withdrawn.
The claims have been amended such that they are no longer interpreted under 35 USC § 112(f); the claim interpretation is withdrawn.
The rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) have been remedied by amendment of the claims and are withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to recite additional structure which amounts to “significantly more than the judicial exception, and integrate them into a particular practical application.” Remarks at 10. Additional structure, where the structure is generic in nature and merely carrying out the abstract idea, does not amount to significantly more or a practical application. In the present claims, the recited processor is generic and is merely being utilized in an “apply it” manner. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC § 102/103, an additional search was performed and the amendments added to the claims are found in prior art, as shown in the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 and 13-20 recite a system which is considered a machine or manufacture. Claims 11 and 12 recite a method which is considered a process.
Step 2A-Prong One
The independent claims recite the concept of providing a benefit to a user based on referrals (see “store user-identifying information of a plurality of user accounts; store in a referral database referral records indicating a number of referrals made by a total number of account holders of the plurality of user accounts; determine a benefit based on the number of referrals made by the total number of account holders; and distribute or credit the benefit to each of the plurality of user accounts based on the number of referrals made by the total number of account holders; wherein the benefit distributed to each of the plurality of user accounts comprises a credit equal to at least a portion of an annual fee of a payment card required by each of the plurality of user accounts, and the credit increases as the number of referrals increases” in claim 1, for example). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including commercial activities. Thus, claim 1, 11, and 16 recite an abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite additional detail that further limit the concept present in the independent claim but do not recite limitations that take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 also recite an abstract idea.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component does not take the claim limitations out of the abstract idea grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of a system comprising at least one server comprising at least one computer processor, communicatively coupled to a network (claims 1-10 and 13-20) or a server comprising at least one computer processor, communicatively coupled to a network (claims 11 and 12) and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The system or server does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0005527 (“Bryant”) in view of US 2006/0129426 (“Pearson”).
Regarding Claim 1, Bryant teaches a system for determining tiered and non-tiered benefits comprising:
at least one server comprising at least one computer processor, communicatively coupled to a network (See “As described herein, the database of the referral social network is maintained by a server in communication with multiple clients over a computer network, and maintains member profile information for individual members that are collected when a member joins the referral social network” in ¶ 0023 and “The referral social network system includes a server or other processor system 10, a referral social network software application 4 and one or more databases or other data storage or memory devices 3” in ¶ 0073.), that is configured to:
store user-identifying information of a plurality of user accounts (See “the database of the referral social network is maintained by a server in communication with multiple clients over a computer network, and maintains member profile information for individual members that are collected when a member joins the referral social network. Member profile information includes the member's identity, such as a screen name, and the identity (if any) of an upline member who referred the member” in ¶ 0023.),
store in a referral database, referral records indicating a number of referrals made by a total number of account holders of the plurality of user accounts (See “Search parameters may be included in the user profile with selections of categories of personal interest 72, such as age, location, gender, memberships, number of followers, number of referrals, number of times the member has successfully been referred, or other suitable information contained within a member profile 70 or elsewhere” in ¶ 0087.),
determine a benefit based on the number of referrals made by the total number of account holders (See “For example, process 106 is implemented by commission manager 56 calculating a referral commission which can be for example based on the referring member referral information stored in the referring members user profile or elsewhere. In one example, the commission manager 56 determines the commission to be paid to the referring member according to upline referrals associated with the referring member. For example, the commission can be determined according to the number of referrals the referring member has already made” in ¶ 0106.); and
distribute or credit the benefit to each of the plurality of user accounts based on the number of referrals made by the total number of account holders (See “The system then initiates payment of the referral commission over the computer network to the identified referring member (process 107)” in ¶ 0100 and “For example, commission manager 56 implements process 107 by managing electronic payment of the referral commission to the user” in ¶ 0107.);
wherein […] the credit increases as the number of referrals increases (See ¶ 0099 and ¶ 0022.).
Bryant does not expressly teach wherein the benefit distributed to each of the plurality of user accounts comprises a credit equal to at least a portion of an annual fee of a payment card required by each of the plurality of users accounts.
However, Pearson teaches wherein the benefit distributed to each of the plurality of user accounts comprises a credit equal to at least a portion of an annual fee of a payment card required by each of the plurality of users accounts (See “Service provider system 10 can provide members 14 with a credit/debit card, as more fully explained below. The service provider debit or credit card can have an annual fee. In one embodiment, a portion of the points awarded can be utilized for payment of the annual fee of the credit/debit card” in ¶ 0063, “In one embodiment, service provider system 10 patrons and members 14 create financial institution transactions by using a credit/debit card associated with service provider system 10 from an affiliated financial institution. Use of the credit/debit card earns points for members” in ¶ 0065, and “awarding points to a member for purchases made through the service provider system or associated merchants that are, (i) made by the member itself, (ii) made by members who were referred to the service provider system by the member, and (iii) made by members who were referred to the service provider system by members in (ii), wherein members in (i), (ii) and (iii) are collectively a member's community” in claim 41.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Bryant and Pearson to utilize referral benefits as credit towards an annual fee of a payment card. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, Bryant further teaches a first account holder of the plurality of account holders makes a referral to a second account holder of a second user account (See “User registration instructions entered via the referral social network user interface are received by the system (process 103). The system then confirms a particular online referral social network member indicated in a communication received from the user device as having referred the user to the online referral social network is either non-paying affiliate or a paying member of the online referral social network (process 104). The communication including an indication of a particular member of the online referral social network as having referred the user to the good or service through the online referral social network can be the received communication requesting to procure the online good or service in process 101. In another example, the communication including the referring member indication can be received for example during the process of registering the user as a new member” in ¶ 0097.).
Regarding Claim 3, Bryant further teaches the referral is determined in the benefit calculation component when the second user account is created (See “System 1 then determines a referral commission payable to the referring member and optionally one or more other members upline and/or downline from the referring member (process 106). The referral commission can be determined based on the referring member causing the user to register with the referral social network as a new member” in ¶ 0099.).
Regarding Claim 4, Bryant further teaches one of the first account holder and the second account holder makes a second referral to a third account holder of a third user account, and wherein the first user account receives a first benefit as a result of the second referral and the second user account receives a second benefit as a result of the second referral, and the third user account receives a third benefit as a result of the second referral (See “System 1 then determines a referral commission payable to the referring member and optionally one or more other members upline and/or downline from the referring member (process 106)” in ¶ 0099 and Figs. 5 and 6 showing that any number of first, second, third, fourth, etc. referrals can occur, resulting in a referral network.).
Regarding Claim 5, Bryant further teaches the first benefit, the second benefit, and the third benefit are equal amounts or equal percentages of spend (See “The rate of compensation for the first level of downline referrals may be higher for the anchor referring member than the second level of downline referrals, but the compensation rates may also be equal, or, in an embodiment, increased as additional referral levels grow” in ¶ 0022 (emphasis added).).
Regarding Claim 6, Bryant further teaches the first benefit, the second benefit, and the third benefit are determined according to a tiered benefit structure that assigns different amounts to the first, second, and third benefits (See “The rate of compensation for the first level of downline referrals may be higher for the anchor referring member than the second level of downline referrals, but the compensation rates may also be equal, or, in an embodiment, increased as additional referral levels grow” in ¶ 0022 (emphasis added).).
Regarding Claim 8, Bryant further teaches a network of user accounts, wherein benefits to all of the user accounts in the network of users accounts are determined based on the number of user accounts in the network (See “According to another aspect, there is provided a method for an online referral social network. The method can comprise for each one of plurality of members in a referral social network: determining from referral information of the online referral social network a combined number of referrals downline and/or upline from a member; and storing in a one call database, the combined number of referrals downline and/or upline from the member and the identity of the member; receiving a request to determine a commission payable to at least a referring member; in response to receiving the request, obtaining in a single database call from the one call database, the combined number of referrals upline and/or downline from the referring member; and determining a commission payable to at least the referring member utilizing said obtained combined number of referrals” in ¶ 0017.).
Regarding Claim 9, Bryant further teaches the benefit is additionally determined by a number of subsequent referrals made by the total number of account holders (See “System 1 then determines a referral commission payable to the referring member and optionally one or more other members upline and/or downline from the referring member (process 106)” in ¶ 0099 and Figs. 5 and 6 showing that any number of first, second, third, fourth, etc. referrals can occur, resulting in a referral network.).
Regarding Claim 10, Bryant further teaches the benefit is additionally determined based on a period of time in which the referrals are made (See “Exemplary Income calculator interface calculates potential earnings based on information such as the number of people the user can personally refer over the course of a particular length of time, such as 6 months, and the number of people each of those referrals can refer in that length of time” in ¶ 0114 and Fig. 19.).
Regarding Claim 13, Bryant further teaches the benefit further comprises a discount of subscription services, cash back, cash payments, points, a credit, or a percentage of spend (See “For example, commission manager 56 implements process 107 by managing electronic payment of the referral commission to the user. Commission manager 56 can pay the referring member and any other members electronically in different ways. For example, commission manager 56 can instruct an e-commerce server to initiate a funds transfer online from a bank account associated with the online referral social network to the bank account of the identified referring member” in ¶ 0107 and Fig. 19 showing that the commissions are in dollars (i.e., cash payments).).
Regarding Claim 16, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected similarly.
Regarding Claim 17, Bryant further teaches the respective benefits of each user account of the plurality of users accounts in the shared network are equal (See “The rate of compensation for the first level of downline referrals may be higher for the anchor referring member than the second level of downline referrals, but the compensation rates may also be equal, or, in an embodiment, increased as additional referral levels grow” in ¶ 0022 (emphasis added).).
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant in view of Pearson, and further in view of US 2020/0082385 (“Evans”).
Regarding Claim 7, neither Bryant nor Pearson expressly teach the processor is configured to identify subscription information based on credit card transaction data.
However, Evans teaches the processor is configured to identify subscription information based on credit card transaction data (See “In some embodiments, system 100 may provide consumers with a free service and/or a paid service. In some embodiments, system 100 may be configured as a web-based platform where users (e.g. consumers) can link their payment cards (credit or debit cards, for example) so that system 100 can identify subscription-related payments on those cards (e.g., Netflix™, Hulu™, Amazon Prime™, etc.), display the subscription-related payments in a web-based platform, and provide cashback for the various subscription-related payments” in ¶ 0061.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Bryant, Person, and Evans to identify subscription information based on transaction data. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 18, neither Bryant nor Pearson expressly teach the respective benefit further comprises a percentage of cash back spent on a subscription service.
However, Evans teaches the respective benefit further comprises a percentage of cash back spent on a subscription service (See “In some embodiments, system 100 may provide consumers with a free service and/or a paid service. In some embodiments, system 100 may be configured as a web-based platform where users (e.g. consumers) can link their payment cards (credit or debit cards, for example) so that system 100 can identify subscription-related payments on those cards (e.g., Netflix™, Hulu™, Amazon Prime™, etc.), display the subscription-related payments in a web-based platform, and provide cashback for the various subscription-related payments” in ¶ 0061 and “a user may receive a certain percentage of cash back (e.g. 1%) for any subscription-related payments made using one or more types of payment cards (e.g. a premium credit card), or 1% cash back for subscription-related payments made using any other card” in ¶ 0062.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Bryant, Pearson, and Evans to calculate a benefit as described in Evans. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2011/0145136 (“Constantine”) in view of Pearson.
Regarding Claim 11, Constantine teaches a method for determining tiered and non-tiered benefits, the method comprising: registering a plurality of a user accounts each associated with a respective account holder; issuing a payment card to each respective account holder; recording issuance of each payment card; recording transaction data of spending using each payment card (See “In accordance with the principle of the invention, a preferred method includes providing an authorized user of a credit card issued by an issuer, namely, a service provider as herein defined. The service provider and the authorized user are participating members of the method, such as by a contractual agreement for credit card services, which is provided and offered by the service provider as a means to enhance the value of a credit card to enhance the authorized user's perception of the desirability of holding or subscribing to the credit card and to encourage increased use of the credit card for its normal utility as a payment device through which the authorized user incurs debt” in ¶ 0016.); registering subsequent user accounts; determining whether the subsequent user accounts were referred by an account holder of the plurality of user accounts; determining a benefit earned by each of the plurality of user accounts based on the issuance of payment cards to the subsequent referred user accounts or the transaction data of spending using the payment cards by each of the plurality of user accounts and subsequent referred user accounts; and distributing the benefit to each of the plurality of user accounts and the subsequent referred user accounts; wherein […] the credit increases as a number of referrals increases (See “In accordance with the principle of the invention, the authorized user refers a customer to the service provider for credit card services” in ¶ 0016, “The service provider receives and processes/underwrites and, in accordance with the method, approves the credit application, and issues a credit card to the referred customer establishing the referred customer as a referred authorized user of a credit card. In granting the referred authorized user credit card services, the service provider may require the payment of a nominal initial fee, i.e., a start-up or initiation fee. In consideration to the authorized user, which can now be considered a referring authorized user, for making a customer referral resulting in the service provider establishing a new referred authorized user of a credit card, in accordance with the principle of the invention, the service provider issues valuable consideration to the referring authorized user” in ¶ 0017, and ¶ 0020.).
Constantine does not expressly teach in at least one server comprising at least one processor, communicatively coupled to a network; wherein the benefit comprises a credit equal to at least a portion of an annual fee required by each payment card of each respective account holder.
However, Pearson teaches in at least one server comprising at least one processor, communicatively coupled to a network (See “In one embodiment of the present invention, illustrated generally in FIGS. 1(a) and 1(b), a service provider system 10 has one or more web servers 12” in ¶ 0043 and “The points awarded are recorded within a computer memory” in ¶ 0060.) wherein the benefit comprises a credit equal to at least a portion of an annual fee required by each payment card of each respective account holder (See “Service provider system 10 can provide members 14 with a credit/debit card, as more fully explained below. The service provider debit or credit card can have an annual fee. In one embodiment, a portion of the points awarded can be utilized for payment of the annual fee of the credit/debit card” in ¶ 0063, “In one embodiment, service provider system 10 patrons and members 14 create financial institution transactions by using a credit/debit card associated with service provider system 10 from an affiliated financial institution. Use of the credit/debit card earns points for members” in ¶ 0065, and “awarding points to a member for purchases made through the service provider system or associated merchants that are, (i) made by the member itself, (ii) made by members who were referred to the service provider system by the member, and (iii) made by members who were referred to the service provider system by members in (ii), wherein members in (i), (ii) and (iii) are collectively a member's community” in claim 41.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Constantine and Pearson to utilize referral benefits as credit towards an annual fee of a payment card. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 12, Constantine further teaches determining whether the transaction data includes charges made toward subscription services; and determining the benefit earned by each of the plurality of user accounts based on the charges made toward the subscription services (See “As used herein, the term "debt" is intended to collectively encompass all monetary obligations incurred by an authorized user of the card and all monies owed to the credit card service provider or issuer of the card for any and all forms of credit presently or hereinafter extendible to the user of or subscriber to the card's services such, by way of nonexclusive example, as for services and merchandise purchases, cash advances or loans, subscription fees, and applied finance charges and the like” in ¶ 0014 and “The invention further provides the authorized user incurring debt on the credit card, which incurred debt and all account activity of the authorized user's credit card account is managed in accordance with well-established and well-known accounting techniques prosecuted by the service provider or other participating party, partner, accounting firm, etc. For a predetermined amount of debt incurred by the authorized user on the credit card, such as $20, $40, $60, $80, $100, $200, $500, $1,000, etc., or other selected and predetermined amount of incurred debt, the method further includes the service provider submitting an entry into a sweepstakes on behalf of the authorized user, and subsequently conducting a drawing from entries of the sweepstakes, wherein the entry of the authorized user is one of the entries” in ¶ 0021.).
Regarding Claim 20, Constantine does not expressly teach wherein a partnering bank, retailer, or provider separate from an issuing bank of the payment card distributes the respective benefit.
However, Pearson teaches wherein a partnering bank, retailer, or provider separate from an issuing bank of the payment card distributes the respective benefit (See Fig. 17 which shows the credit card bank being a separate entity from the service provider system.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Constantine and Pearson to have the benefit provided by a separate provider. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant in view of Pearson, Constantine, and Evans.
Regarding Claim 14, Bryant teaches the plurality of users accounts and referrals (see rejection of claim 1 above.)
Neither Bryant nor Pearson expressly teach store payment card status and spend information related to each payment card, the payment card status and spend information indicating whether each of the plurality of user accounts and the subsequent referred user accounts are in possession of the respective payment card, payment categories, and an amount of spend on the payment card, and wherein the processor is configured to determine the benefit based on the respective payment card status of the respective user accounts and the respective subsequent referred user accounts or spend information of the respective user accounts on the respective payment card and the spend information of the respective subsequent referred user accounts on the respective payment card.
However, Constantine teaches store payment card status and spend information related to each payment card, the payment card status and spend information indicating whether each of the plurality of user accounts and the subsequent referred user accounts are in possession of the respective payment card, and an amount of spend on the payment card, and wherein the processor is configured to determine the benefit based on the respective payment card status of the respective user accounts and the respective subsequent referred user accounts or spend information of the respective user accounts on the respective payment card and the spend information of the respective subsequent referred user accounts on the respective payment card (See ¶¶ 0016 and 0017 and the rejection of claims 11 and 12 above.).
Further, Evans teaches store payment categories (See “In still another aspect, the set of transaction data includes at least one of: credit card digits, credit card owner, Card Verification Value (CVV), merchant name, merchant ID, merchant location, merchant category, transaction ID, SKU, transaction amount, transaction currency, a bank identification number (BIN) and an Authorization Code” in ¶ 0012.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Bryant, Pearson, Constantine, and Evans utilize payment card spend information to determine a benefit. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 15, Bryant further teaches the benefit further comprises a discount of a certain category or type of spend, cash back, cash payments, points, credits or a percentage of the spend for the respective user accounts or respective subsequent user accounts (See “For example, commission manager 56 implements process 107 by managing electronic payment of the referral commission to the user. Commission manager 56 can pay the referring member and any other members electronically in different ways. For example, commission manager 56 can instruct an e-commerce server to initiate a funds transfer online from a bank account associated with the online referral social network to the bank account of the identified referring member” in ¶ 0107 and Fig. 19 showing that the commissions are in dollars (i.e., cash payments).).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant in view of Pearson, and further in view of US 2009/0259547 (“Clopp”).
Regarding Claim 19, neither Bryant nor Pearson expressly teach a number of the plurality of user accounts of the shared network is capped at a predetermined maximum.
However, Clopp teaches a number of the plurality of user accounts of the shared network is capped at a predetermined maximum (See “This may require a cap on derivative payouts. For example, there may be a limit to the number of sub agents” in ¶ 0075.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Bryant, Pearson, and Clopp to cap the network. The motivation, as found in Clopp, is to cap the payouts. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622