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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This First Office action is in reply to the application filed on 15 October 2024.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined. The Information Disclosure Statement filed 15 October 2024 has been considered by the Examiner. A signed copy is enclosed with this Office Action.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicants’ claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy filed 24 November 2023 has been received.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea and are analyzed in the following step process:
Step 1: Claims 1-12 are each focused to a statutory category of invention, namely a “method” set. However independent “system” Claim 13 recites various “unit[s] configured to”. The various “unit”[s] are considered software per se and software is not a statutory category of invention unless provided with support from non-transitory computer readable media. Despite this failure to pass Step 1, the Examiner proceeds to the next steps of the analysis
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 1-13 recite limitations that set forth the abstract ideas, namely, the claims as a whole recite the claimed invention as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite steps for:
“generating a plurality of optimization patterns by combining the constraints to be analyzed;
calculating, for each of the optimization patterns, an upper bound based on the evaluation indices when a condition corresponding to a focus state that a user pays attention to in the optimal plan is satisfied and the upper bound when the condition is not satisfied;
searching for an executable solution for the optimization under each of the conditions; and
determining, based on the upper bound and the executable solution, whether an optimal solution for the optimization is present under the conditions”
As detailed in the MPEP 2106 and commensurate to the two-part subject matter eligibility framework decision in the Federal court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., (Alice), 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update), and the new “July 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, including on Artificial Intelligence”, the 2019 PEG explains that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter. The 35 U.S.C. 101 Step 2A, Prong One analysis focuses on whether a claim recites a judicial exception by evaluating if it falls into one of three specific groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity. Based on the provided steps above in bolded, the claims are based on an abstract idea of “generating optimization patterns, calculating upper bounds based on user-focused conditions, searching for solutions, and determining optimal solutions” the analysis for Step 2A Prong One is as follows:
Mathematical concepts – [mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations]. The steps of "calculating... an upper bound" and determining optimal solutions based on those bounds” represent mathematical formulas and algorithms.
Certain methods of organizing human activity – [business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)]. The process of "combining constraints" and "focusing on a state a user pays attention to…" can be interpreted as automating a mental process or managing business/operational constraints.
Mental processes – [concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)]. The process of "combining constraints" and "focusing on a state a user pays attention to…" can be interpreted as automating a mental process or managing business/operational constraints.
See MPEP § 2106.04(a) III C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.
Prong Two: Claims 1-13: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1-13 recite additional elements directed to “a processor and a memory; processor; (various “unit(s); processing device 1002 is a general-purpose computer including a processor such as a CPU and a memory” (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶’s 53-60, 113-119). Therefore, the claims contain computer components that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (h).
Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 1-13 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 nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of “a processor and a memory; processor; [various] unit(s); processing device 1002 is a general-purpose computer including a processor such as a CPU and a memory”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
The Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Here, the claims utilize a computer or other machinery (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶’s 53-60, 113-119) regarding using existing computer processors as well as program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored. “plan analysis system 1” in its ordinary capacity for performing tasks (e.g., to receive, analyze, transmit and display data) and/or use computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice and certain methods of organization human activities) and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Software implementations are accomplished with standard programming techniques with logic to perform connection steps, processing steps, comparison steps and decisions steps. These claims are directed to being a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer (see Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)); Versata Dev. Group, Inc., v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 D.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and require the use of software such as via a server to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 U.S.C. §112(f) Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the words “configured to” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In this instant case,
Independent system Claim 13 recites the limitations: various “unit[s] configured to”. The claim uses a substitute for the word “means” as (a generic placeholder). Since the claim limitations(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph, Claim 13 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: ¶’s 47-51, 58-64.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this
Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary
Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9,
2011).
Examiner note: Examiner points to the decision of In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation. (Fed. Cir. 2011) holding that claim terms involving basic “processing,”, “receiving,” and “storing” do not need to be “be specially programmed to perform the recited function.” A standard microprocessor can serve as sufficient structure for “functions [that] can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming” (emphasis added).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Here, Claim 13 is interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to provide sufficient disclosure the corresponding structure, for each of their underlining functions, identified above, let alone to clearly link each of said enumerated functions to each of its corresponding necessitated structure, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure material to perform the claimed function (emphasis added). Accordingly, Claim 13 is rendered vague and indefinite, and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Clarifications and/or corrections are required.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The indefinite and broadly recited claim language limitation recitations of: “a user pays attention to; as to whether” are not definite and specific limitations to one or ordinary skill in the art could make definite, accurate, and specific determination of scale, detail, measurement, and whether these indefinite limitations actually provide accurate and definite results. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palanisamy et al. (Palanisamy) (US 2021/0232985).
With regard to Claims 1, 13, Palanisamy teaches a plan analysis method/system/ to be executed by a plan analysis system that analyzes (Planner insight analytics identifies orders and sizes customers can execute to achieve business and operational efficiency) an optimal plan in which an optimization target is optimized (Generating optimal trimming patterns for trimming raw rolls and/or sheets of a flat sheet stock/customer orders) based on a plurality of constraints and evaluation indices (generating solutions for (i) order quantity fulfillment, (ii) a primary cutting pattern for the primary machine, (iii) a secondary cutting pattern for the secondary machine, and (iv) inventory details, wherein the solutions are generated with consideration of the initial trade constraints; (c) executing a batch and generating suggestions; (d) generating modified solutions for the parameters in step (b) using revised trade constraints derived from the suggestions generated that override the initial trade constraints in (c); and (e) operating a cutting apparatus), the plan analysis system including a processor and a memory (QCS 4 includes any hardware, software, firmware, or combination thereof for controlling the operation of the sheetmaking machine 2 or other machine. QCS 4 can, for example, include a processor and memory storing instructions and data used, generated, and collected by the processor), the plan analysis method/system comprising the processor executing the following processing (see at least paragraphs 36, 39; Abstract):
generating a plurality of optimization patterns by combining the constraints ((a) receiving customer order specifications; (b) receiving primary machine specifications; (c) receiving secondary machine specifications; (d) receiving warehouse inventory specifications; (e) receiving trade constraints; (f) generating solutions for the following parameters (i) order quantity fulfillment, (ii) a primary cutting pattern for the primary machine, (iii) a secondary cutting pattern for the secondary machine, and (iv) inventory details, wherein the solutions are generated with consideration of initially received trade constraints; (g) executing a batch and generating suggestions; [0015] (h) generating modified solutions for the parameters in step (f) using revised trade constraints derived from the suggestions generated in (g), which override the initial trade and inventory constraints) to be analyzed (the invention is directed to a trimming system which includes a computer device that automatically calculates the above-described optimal trimming patterns and a cutting apparatus for cutting a reel or sheet of material into a plurality of smaller reels or sheets of material, wherein the cutting apparatus is configured to receive the modified solutions generated by the computer device; Planner insight analytics) (see at least paragraphs 8-15, 20, 51-62; Abstract);
calculating, for each of the optimization patterns, an upper bound (Most trim algorithms focus on minimization of the number master rolls used to fulfill customer demand with relaxation on the upper bound of the demand constraints instead of minimization of the trim loss. Consequently, suboptimal solutions are derived for the original problem; includes the dualities of both upper and lower bound demand constraints) based on the evaluation indices when a condition (complete enumerated pattern generation approach or a column generation; customer demands or orders; policies, parameters and constraints; regarding the order quantity and sizes they can make to achieve higher efficiencies) corresponding to a focus state that a user pays attention to in the optimal plan is satisfied and the upper bound when the condition is not satisfied (When a user solves the above problem, the user either uses a complete enumerated pattern generation approach or a column generation approach. The upper bound is not provided for in the demand in the column generation approach. The reason is that the column generation approach uses a Knapsack which uses the duality of above demand constraint in the pattern generation. The duality is used in both objectives. When a user wants to have both upper and lower bounds, the standard or conventional Knapsack approach does not work because it always tries to minimize the number of rolls used instead of the overall trim loss. Also, the current column generation approach uses a Knapsack based on lower bound on the demand. In actual practice, a user preferably wants to minimize the loss which is indirectly attained by the standard or conventional approach but it is not efficient because there is no upper limit of demand) (see at least paragraphs 5, 21, 42-44, 51-62);
searching for an executable solution (generates solutions) for the optimization under each of the conditions (complete enumerated pattern generation approach or a column generation; customer demands or orders; policies, parameters and constraints; regarding the order quantity and sizes they can make to achieve higher efficiencies) (see at least paragraphs 5, 21, 42-44, 51-62);
determining, based on the upper bound and the executable solution, whether an optimal solution for the optimization is present under the conditions (Traditional trim algorithms 72 focus on minimization of the number of master rolls used to fulfill customer demands or orders with relaxation on the upper bound of the demand constraints rather than minimization of trim loss. Applying established policies, parameters and constraints (P-P-C), the profit maximization algorithm 70 generates solutions to operate the trim applications 76 of primary and secondary equipment) (see at least paragraphs 5, 21, 42-44, 51-62).
With regard to Claim 2, Palanisamy teaches: determining, based on the focus state, an initial condition for calculating the upper bound and searching for the executable solution (see at least paragraphs 5, 21, 42-44, 51-62).
With regard to Claim 3, Palanisamy teaches: holding the upper bound and the executable solution in each of the conditions, and outputting information indicating that a certain condition among the conditions is satisfied in the optimal solution when the executable solution in the certain condition exceeds the upper bound in another condition (see at least paragraphs 5, 21, 42-44, 51-62).
With regard to Claim 4, Palanisamy teaches: searching for the executable solution under the condition to which a new condition (new insights) is added in a search process of the executable solution (see at least paragraphs 5, 21, 42-44, 51-62);
updating the upper bound based on the condition to which the new condition is added (see at least paragraphs 5, 21, 42-44, 51-62).
With regard to Claim 5, Palanisamy teaches: when a completion condition of the search for the executable solution is satisfied, completing the search for the executable solution, executing predetermined exception processing, and outputting an execution result of the exception processing instead of outputting the information (see at least paragraphs 42-44, 67).
With regard to Claim 6, Palanisamy teaches: generating the optimization patterns in an order including more constraints among the plurality of constraints (see at least paragraphs 5, 21, 42-44, 51-62).
With regard to Claim 7, Palanisamy teaches: determining whether the executable solution already acquired in another optimization pattern satisfies the condition in the target optimization pattern, and when the condition is satisfied, holding the executable solution as a provisional solution in the target optimization pattern (see at least paragraphs 68-71).
With regard to Claim 8, Palanisamy teaches: executing a breadth-first search when searching for the executable solution.
With regard to Claim 9, Palanisamy teaches: calculating an inverse constraint for an excluded constraint that is the constraint excluded in the optimization pattern; searching for the executable solution for the optimization pattern by using the inverse constraint (see at least paragraphs 5, 21, 42-44, 51-62);
comparing the upper bound or the executable solution acquired during the search for the executable solution with the upper bound or the executable solution under the same condition among the upper bound or the executable solution obtained for the optimization pattern including the excluded constraint, and determining the upper bound or the executable solution with a larger value as the upper bound or the executable solution under the condition (see at least paragraphs 5, 21, 42-44, 51-62, 70).
With regard to Claim 10, Palanisamy teaches: converting the optimization pattern and a determination result as to whether an optimal solution for the optimization is present under the condition for the optimization pattern into a feature and storing the feature in contribution degree calculation data (see at least paragraphs 50-52);
calculating, based on the feature, a contribution degree of each of the constraints for the optimal plan (see at least paragraphs 50-52).
With regard to Claim 11, Palanisamy teaches: generating, by the processor, a description for the focus state based on the contribution degree and outputting a result through an output device (see at least paragraphs 50-52) .
With regard to Claim 12, Palanisamy teaches: receiving a user input of information related to generation of the description via an input device (see at least paragraphs 48-52).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Barik et al. (US 2022/0317978)
Alkurd et al. (WO 2020/041883)
Araujo et al. (US 2022/0317979)
Chandran et al. (US 2022/0123853)
Gkiotsalitis et al. (US 2018/0032964)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624