DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final, First Office Action on the Merits in response to communications filed October 25, 2024. Currently, claims 1–15 are pending.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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 word “means” (or “step”) 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a control unit” and “a storage unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1–2, 4–8, and 13–15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 14–15 recite “the obtained skill information” in the element for “obtaining skill information”. However, claims 3–6, 9–11, and 13, which depend from claim 1, subsequently recite “the skill information”. In view of the above, Examiner recommends amending claims 1 and 14–15 to recite “the
Similarly to the above, claims 4, 7–8, and 13 recite “the obtained skill information” in lines 2–3 of claim 4, lines 2–3 and 3 of claim 7, line 2 of claim 8, and lines 2–3 of claim 13. Examiner recommends amending claims 4, 7–8, and 13 to recite “the
Claim 2 recites “the accepted employment request information” in the element for “accepting … employment approval information”. However, claim 2 previously recites both “employment request information” and “the employment request information” in the element for “accepting … employment request information”. In view of the above, Examiner recommends amending claim 2 to recite “the
Similarly to the above, claims 4–6 recite “the accepted employment request information” in lines 3–4 of claim 4, lines 6–7 of claim 5, and line 6 of claim 6. Examiner recommends amending claims 4–6 to recite “the .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 14–15 recite “stored information of the registrants” in the element for “obtaining skill information”. However, claims 1 and 14–15 previously recite an element that “stores information of the registrants”. As a result, the scope of claims 1 and 14–15 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of “stored information” to reference the previous recitation of “information” or intends to introduce second, different “information of the registrants”.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “providing the the
Further, as noted above, claim 1 recites “the control unit”, which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. More particularly, paragraph 37 indicates that the control unit “is for example, an application” and paragraphs 21–22, distinguish the recited “control unit” from the disclosed processor. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
For purposes of examination, the recited “control unit” is interpreted as a processor.
In view of the above, claims 1 and 14–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2–13, which depend from claim 1, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 2–13 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 further recites “the program” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 2 is interpreted as reciting “wherein the control unit further performs”.
Claim 13 recites “the registrant” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 13 is interpreted as reciting “the registrants”.
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 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–15 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “accepting employment recruitment information from the business entity, and presenting the employment recruitment information to the registrants”; “obtaining work information indicating that the registrants have been employed related to the employment recruitment information with approval from the business entity”; and “obtaining skill information regarding skills based on the work information, and providing the obtained skill information in association with stored information of the registrants.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a process for managing a relationship between a business entity and registrants. Further, the elements recite mental processes because the elements embody observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 14–15 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 14–15 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2–13 further describe the process for managing a relationship between a business entity and registrants and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–13 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a control unit, a storage unit, and functionality that “stores” information. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the functionality that “stores” is an insignificant extrasolution activity to the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 14–15 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 14 further includes a computer comprising a processor and a memory, and claim 15 further includes a computer readable medium, the additional elements, when considered in view of the claims as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 14–15 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–13 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–13 depend. As a result, claims 2–13 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a control unit, a storage unit, and functionality that “stores” information. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the functionality that “stores” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which identifies storing information as a conventional computer function. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 14–15 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 14 further includes a computer comprising a processor and a memory, and claim 15 further includes a computer readable medium, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 14–15 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–13 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–13 depend. As a result, claims 2–13 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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, 3–5, and 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HANSEN et al. (U.S. 2022/0207485).
Claims 1 and 14–15: Hansen discloses an information processing apparatus that includes a control unit and a storage unit (See FIG. 1), and that is for managing registrants who are registered for employment by a business entity,
wherein the storage unit stores information of the registrants (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 150, wherein candidate profiles are stored in a database), and
the control unit performs steps of: accepting employment recruitment information from the business entity (See paragraphs 99 and 198, wherein team profiles and job details are added to the portal), and presenting the employment recruitment information to the registrants (See paragraph 154, in view of paragraph 138, wherein a candidate job seeker may view job opportunities, and wherein the candidate may be an external candidate or an internal candidate);
obtaining work information indicating that the registrants have been employed related to the employment recruitment information with approval from the business entity (See paragraph 100, in view of paragraphs 50 and 138, wherein candidate profiles include skills and work information, wherein the candidate may be an external candidate or an internal candidate, and wherein internal candidate profiles are updated “based on team member obtaining the attribute over time”; see also paragraph 58, wherein modifications to a candidate profile are based on changes in candidate attributes and skills); and
obtaining skill information regarding skills based on the work information, and providing the obtained skill information in association with stored information of the registrants (See paragraph 150, in view of paragraphs 50 and 58, wherein candidate profiles are stored in a database, and wherein modifications to a candidate profile are based on changes in candidate attributes and skills measured over time; see also paragraphs 139 and 154, wherein the employer may view candidate information, including the candidate profile).
With respect to claim 14, Hansen discloses a computer comprising a processor and a memory (See FIG. 1).
With respect to claim 15, Hansen discloses a computer readable medium that stores a program that is to be executed by processing circuitry (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 82).
Claim 3: Hansen discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in the step of accepting the employment recruitment information, the skill information related to the employment recruitment information is accepted with the employment recruitment information (See paragraphs 99 and 198, wherein team and job posting profile details are added by the employer).
Claim 4: Hansen discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein, in the step of providing the obtained skill information, the skill information related to the accepted employment recruitment information is provided as the skill information based on the work information (See paragraphs 138–139 and 154, in view of paragraphs 50 and 58, wherein the employer may view candidate information, including the candidate profile, and wherein modifications to a candidate profile are based on changes in candidate attributes and skills measured over time, and wherein the candidate may be an external candidate or an internal candidate).
Claim 5: Hansen discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein, in the step of accepting the employment recruitment information and presenting the employment recruitment information to the registrants, the employment recruitment information is presented only to the registrants with the skill information related to the accepted employment recruitment information (See FIG. 4B and paragraph 222, wherein the system may “filter a set of job postings to remove at least a first job posting from the set of job postings based at least in part on the first set of attributes; and present, via a user interface, data corresponding to the set of job postings excluding at least the first job posting”; see also paragraph 198).
Claim 13: Hansen discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in the step of providing the obtained skill information, either or both of a numerical value related to the skill information provided to the registrants and an employment period related to the skill information provided to the registrant are updated according to the work information (See paragraphs 138–139 and 154, in view of paragraphs 50 and 58, wherein the employer may view candidate information, including the candidate profile, and wherein modifications to a candidate profile are based on changes in candidate attributes and skills measured over time, and wherein the results of ranking, weighing, and matching candidate skills and attributes are presented to the employer).
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.
Claims 2 and 6–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HANSEN et al. (U.S. 2022/0207485) in view of Terhark et al. (U.S. 2018/0232751).
Claim 2: As indicated above, Hansen discloses the elements of claim 1.
Hansen discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the program further performs steps of: accepting, from the registrants who request application for the employment recruitment information, employment request information for the employment recruitment information, and presenting the employment request information to the business entity (See paragraph 154, wherein a candidate job seeker may submit request information for specific positions, and wherein an employer dashboard facilitates managing applicants through the hiring process; see also paragraph 139, wherein candidate applications are forwarded to the employer). Although Hansen implicitly discloses accepting employment approval information for approving employment of the registrants related to the accepted employment request information, and presenting the employment approval information to the registrants (See paragraph 154, wherein candidate and employment dashboards are disclosed for managing the hiring process, and FIG. 4B and paragraphs 194 and 196, disclose onboarding functions), Hansen does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Terhark discloses accepting, from the business entity, employment approval information for approving employment of the registrants related to the accepted employment request information, and presenting the employment approval information to the registrants (See paragraph 267, wherein the system tool is used by both companies and candidates to manage the “entire hiring process”, and wherein the system presents requests from the company that are accepted by the candidate).
Hansen discloses a system directed to managing a workforce by managing a hiring process for a company and teams within the company. Terhark discloses a system directed to modeling a candidate career to facilitate hiring practices. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing workforce hiring. The technique of accepting and presenting hiring approvals is applicable to the system of Hansen as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing workforce hiring.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Terhark would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Terhark to the teachings of Hansen would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate workforce hiring management into similar systems. Further, applying hiring approval acceptance and presentation to Hansen would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
Claim 6: Hansen discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein, in the step of accepting the employment request information for the employment recruitment information, the employment request information is accepted only from the registrants with the skill information related to the accepted employment recruitment information (See paragraph 222, in view of paragraph 154, wherein, during an application process, the system may “filter a set of job postings to remove at least a first job posting from the set of job postings based at least in part on the first set of attributes; and present, via a user interface, data corresponding to the set of job postings excluding at least the first job posting”).
Claim 7: Hansen discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein, in the step of providing the obtained skill information, the obtained skill information based on the work information is provided as a first skill specific to the business entity or a second skill not limited to the business entity (See paragraph 8, wherein hard skills are disclosed, and wherein hard skills are either specific to the employer or not limited to the employer; see also paragraphs 100 and 149).
Claim 8: Hansen discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the obtained skill information based on the work information is provided as the first skill, as the second skill, or a third skill specific to a group including the business entity (See paragraph 8, in view of paragraphs 100 and 149, wherein hard skills are disclosed, and wherein hard skills are either specific to the employer or not limited to the employer).
Claim 9: Hansen discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein, in the step of presenting the employment request information for the employment recruitment information to the business entity, the skill information provided to the registrants is presented for each of the first skill, the second skill, or the third skill (See paragraphs 138–139, wherein candidate skills are ranked, weighed, and presented to the employer; see also paragraphs 99, 198, and 154).
Claim 10: Hansen discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein a standard viewable by the business entity that views the skill information is set for each of the first skill, the second skill, or the third skill (See paragraphs 138–139, wherein candidate skills are ranked, weighed, and presented to the employer). Hansen does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Terhark discloses a range viewable by the business entity that views the skill information is set for a skill (See paragraphs 21 and 235, wherein score ranges and buckets are disclosed)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Terhark would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 11: Hansen discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein, in the step of presenting the employment request information to the business entity, for the registrants related to the employment request information, a priority based on the skill information related to the employment recruitment information is determined from the skill information provided to the registrants, and a list of the registrants related to the employment request information is presented based on the priority (See paragraphs 138–139, in view of paragraph 154, wherein the results of ranking candidate attributes and skills are submitted to an employer for consideration, and wherein candidate ranking is disclosed in the context of an employer dashboard that facilitates managing applicants through a hiring process).
Claim 12: Hansen discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein presenting the registrants related to the employment request information is changed based on the priority (See paragraphs 138–139, in view of paragraph 154, wherein the results of ranking candidate attributes and skills are submitted to an employer for consideration, and wherein indicating a ranking is a change in presentation based on priority). Hansen does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Terhark discloses a mode for presenting the registrants related to the employment request information is changed (See FIG. 54–56 and paragraph 262, wherein candidates are displayed on an overlapping diagram using different colors to distinguish candidate fit; see also paragraph 173, wherein gaps are highlighted).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Terhark would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 2.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CAHALANE et al. (U.S. 2022/0284374) discloses a system directed to managing a workforce using skills gap analysis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623