DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This office action is submitted in response to the amendment filed on 12/22/25.
Examiner notes that this application is a continuation of 17/655897, which is now US Patent No. 12154141.
Examiner further notes that 17/655897 is a continuation of 16/578801 and 14/969173, which are now US Patent Nos. 11308525 and 10460355, respectively.
Examiner further notes Applicant’s priority date of 12/15/15, which stems from the aforementioned parent applications.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12154141 in view of Shariat et al. (10163130).
The instant application and the parent applications all contain: receiving, at a server, a bid request, the bid request including a user identifier; determining, by the server, proprietary data to include in an augmented bid request, the proprietary data associated with the user identifier; generating, by the server, the augmented bid request based on the bid request and the user identifier, the augmented bid request being formatted into a standardized bid request; and transmitting, by the server, the augmented bid request to an impression bidder. The parents, however, do not disclose “prior to a bidding process, adjusting the augmented bid request based on the proprietary data.”
Shariat, however, discloses prior to a bidding process, adjusting the augmented bid request based on the proprietary data (Fig. 3; Col. 7, 59 – Col. 8, Line 5. Before the bid is placed for the ad to be displayed on the application to the user, the bid system takes the bid request with the user ID and context data and optimizes a bid.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of Shariat with those of the aforementioned parent application. One would have been motivated to do this in order to optimize the bid and ensure that the ads are placed.
Claims 1-20 are further rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11308525 in view of Shariat et al. (10163130).
The instant application and the parent applications all contain: receiving, at a server, a bid request, the bid request including a user identifier; determining, by the server, proprietary data to include in an augmented bid request, the proprietary data associated with the user identifier; generating, by the server, the augmented bid request based on the bid request and the user identifier, the augmented bid request being formatted into a standardized bid request; and transmitting, by the server, the augmented bid request to an impression bidder. The parents, however, do not disclose “the augmented bid request being formatted in to a standardized bid request.”
Shariat, however, discloses a method for generating, by the server, the augmented bid request based on the bid request and the user identifier, the augmented bid request being formatted into a standardized bid request (Fig. 3; Claim 1; Col. 7, Lines 17-25. The context data is combined with the user ID and sent with the bid request to the ad exchange and bid system. The bid request contains campaign parameters and specifications such as a budget, an ad, a goal, and a set of constraints).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of Shariat with those of the aforementioned parent application. One would have been motivated to do this in order to optimize the bid and ensure that the ads are placed.
Claims 1-20 are further rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of US Patent No. 11308525.
The instant application and the parent applications all contain: receiving, at a server, a bid request, the bid request including a user identifier; determining, by the server, proprietary data to include in an augmented bid request, the proprietary data associated with the user identifier; generating, by the server, the augmented bid request based on the bid request and the user identifier, the augmented bid request being formatted into a standardized bid request; and transmitting, by the server, the augmented bid request to an impression bidder.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
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.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test, the claims are analyzed to determine whether they fall within one of the four statutory categories. Claim 1 recites a method, which qualifies as a process. Claim 8 recites a system comprising a processor and a data storage device, which qualifies as a machine. Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which qualifies as an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15, and their respective dependent claims, each fall within a statutory category under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See MPEP 2106.03.
Next, independent claims 1, 8, and 15, in part, describe an invention comprising: determining proprietary data to include in an augmented bid request; generating the augmented bid request; formatting the request into a standardized request; adjusting the augmented bid request based on the proprietary data; and converting the adjusted bid into a standard format. As such, the invention is directed to the abstract idea of adjusting bids for ad placement based on user data, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04(a), is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (i.e. advertising and commercial interactions). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: receiving a bid request, and transmitting the adjusted bid request. Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extrasolution activity. (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle in to a patentable process.”).
The aforementioned claims also recite additional elements including a “data storage device” for storing executable instructions, and a “processor” contained within a “server” for executing the method. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Furthermore, looking at the elements individually and in combination, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field, apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease, apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s), and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g. generic servers connected to a network).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Simply put, as noted above, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer (or any other technology), and their collective functions are merely facilitated by generic computer implementation.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer, the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified as extra-solution activity, amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea), and are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are dependent on the aforementioned independent claims, and include all the limitations contained therein. These claims do not recite any additional technical elements, and simply disclose additional limitations that further limit the abstract idea with details regarding repeating the process for a second bid, performing certain steps concurrently, performing certain steps consecutively, bid adjustment, encrypting/decrypting data, and determining whether to respond to the bid request. Thus, the dependent claims merely provide additional non-structural details that fail to meaningfully limit the claims or the abstract idea(s).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shariat et al. (10163130B2) in view of Nolet et al. (10445781B2) and further in view of Jackson et al. (20120253928A1).
Claims 1, 8, and 15: Shariat discloses a computer-implemented method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising:
"receiving, at a server, a bid request, the bid request including a user identifier" (Col. 6, l. 64 – Col. 7, l. 5. A bid request corresponding to an online advertising impression opportunity is received at a server, the bid request including a user identifier associated with the user to whom the advertisement is to be served.);
"determining, by the server, proprietary data to include in an augmented bid request, the proprietary data associated with the user identifier" (FIG. 3; Claim 1. Event and contextual data associated with the user identifier is collected and identified for inclusion with the augmented bid request. This proprietary data — gathered from the user's interactions with content and advertisements and stored in association with the user identifier — is determined for inclusion in the augmented bid request prior to its transmission to the impression bidder.);
"generating, by the server, the augmented bid request based on the bid request and the user identifier" (Col. 7, ll. 17-25. The identified contextual data is combined with the user identifier and incorporated into the bid request, generating an augmented bid request that is structured to contain campaign parameters and specifications including a budget, an ad, a goal, and a set of constraints.); and
"transmitting, by the server, the augmented bid request to an impression bidder" (Col. 8, ll. 7-32. The augmented bid request is transmitted through the ad exchange to the impression bidder for use in the real-time bidding process.).
Shariat fails to explicitly disclose: (1) "prior to a bidding process, adjusting the augmented bid request by appending the proprietary data to the augmented bid request" where the proprietary data comprises user data such as demographic information, salary, or geographical location; and (2) "the augmented bid request being formatted into a standardized bid request."
Nolet, however, discloses "prior to a bidding process, adjusting the augmented bid request by appending the proprietary data to the augmented bid request," wherein the proprietary data comprises user demographic data associated with the user identifier (Claim 1; Claims 14-15; FIG. 3A; Col. 27-28. A transaction management computing subsystem — operating as the server — receives a call for an advertisement creative to be served to an impression consumer. The system retrieves user data store information associated with the impression consumer (FIG. 3A, steps 303-304), and adds that user data to the bid request prior to sending it to the bidding computing subsystem acting as the impression bidder (FIG. 3A, step 305; Claim 1, "adding the first set of non-abstracted user data to the information describing the impression consumer of the first bid request"). This appending occurs prior to the bidding process — before the bid request is transmitted to any bidding computing subsystem. The user data appended to the bid request expressly includes demographic information, psychographic information, and behavioral data about the impression consumer, including specifically gender, age range, zip code, income level, and behavioral interests (Claims 14-15; Col. 27-28).);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine this feature of Nolet with those of Shariat. One would have been motivated to do so because appending user demographic and proprietary data to a bid request prior to the bidding process improves the ability of the impression bidder to accurately value and target the impression. Nolet itself recognizes this motivation, noting that the advertising industry is moving toward a "user specific buying model where specific advertising is generated for a specific user" (Col. 4, ll. 30-38).
Jackson, on the other hand, further discloses "the augmented bid request being formatted into a standardized bid request" (Paragraphs 0049-0050; Claims 1 and 7. When a bid request is received from an advertising exchange, the fields of interest — including site, site category, auction identifier, Internet Protocol (IP) address, user identifier, and ad position — are extracted from the bid request and translated into a common, standardized format. The bid request information is decoded and put into a standard format to enable consistent processing and comparison across multiple advertising exchanges and impression bidding systems, constituting a standardized bid request.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine this feature of Jackson with those of Shariat and Nolet. One would have been motivated to do so because formatting the augmented bid request into a standardized structure, as taught by Jackson, ensures that any impression bidder can receive and process the enriched bid request regardless of the originating exchange, enabling interoperability across multiple advertising platforms (Paragraphs 0049-0050).
Claims 2, 9, and 16: The Shariat/Nolet/Jackson combination discloses those limitations cited above. Shariat further discloses a method for receiving a second bid request and subsequently optimizes a bid for ad placement (See Claim 1 and Fig. 6). Nolet, however, further discloses a method for receiving, at the server, a second request to augment a second bid request with proprietary data, the second bid request including a second user identifier; determining, by the server, proprietary data to include in a second augmented bid request, the proprietary data including user-specific data associated with the second user identifier; generating, by the server, the second augmented bid request based on the second bid request and the second user identifier, the second augmented bid request including the proprietary data and being formatted into a standardized bid request; and transmitting, by the server, the second augmented bid request to the impression bidder. (Fig. 3B; col. 22, ll. 18–32. Nolet discloses a transaction management computing subsystem (Imp Bus 204) that receives and processes a set of bid requests for a given impression, including a first bid request (Bid Request A-specific 315) and a second bid request (Bid Request B-specific 315), wherein each bid request includes a respective subset of user data store information associated with a user identifier, and wherein the Imp Bus determines, generates, and transmits each augmented bid request to the respective bidder.).
The rationale for combining Nolet with Shariat and Jackson is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claims 4, 11, and 19: In addition to those limitations cited above, Shariat further discloses a method wherein the receiving, determining, generating, and transmitting steps occur consecutively. (Figs. 2-3. The steps are performed in a particular consecutive order and are not done in real time.).
Claims 5, 12, and 17: In addition to those limitations cited above, Shariat further discloses a method wherein the second augmented bid request is used to adjust the bid request by a bidding exchange. (Fig. 3 #312 and 302. The bid request is optimized by a “bid system,” which then sends the ad with the optimized bid to an ad exchange).
Claims 3, 10, and 18 are rejected under are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Shariat/Nolet/Jackson in view of Zhu (20140100944).
The Shariat/Nolet/Jackson combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly describe a method wherein the determining, generating, and transmitting steps occur concurrently.
Zhu, however, discloses a method wherein the determining, generating, and transmitting steps occur concurrently. (Paragraphs 2, 82, and 133. The process of receiving a bid request, generating an optimized bid, and responding with the optimized bid is all performed in real time and simultaneous with or very near in time to the bid request receipt).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of Zhu with those of Shariat/Nolet/Jackson. One would have been motivated to do this in order to perform the process dynamically and instantaneously.
Claims 6, 14, and 20 are rejected under are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Shariat/Nolet/Jackson in view of Buller (10248973).
As noted above, Shariat discloses a method for providing an augmented bid request (Fig.3; Claim 1), but does not appear to explicitly describe a method wherein the augmented bid request is used to determine whether to respond to the bid request by the impression bidder.
Buller, however, discloses a method wherein the [augmented] bid request is used to determine whether to respond to the bid request by the impression bidder. (Col. 1, Line 60 – Col. 2, Line 10. A bid request for an ad is received, and is used to determine which advertiser should submit a bid for the ad space and/or determining that the viewing user satisfies targeting criteria.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of Buller with those of Shariat/Nolet/Jackson. One would have been motivated to do this in order to determine whether or not it is worthwhile for the advertiser to spend the money on the campaign.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Shariat/Nolet/Jackson in view of Papakipos (20150142551), and in further view of Huang (20070050249).
Shariat/Nolet/Jackson discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly describe a method further comprising: decrypting, by the server, the bid request for proprietary data; and encrypting, by the server, the augmented bid request.
Papakipos, however, discloses a method in an ad auction environment for decrypting, by the server, the bid request for proprietary data (Paragraphs 9, 36, and 51. The user information is decrypted and used to identify advertising groups that include the user.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of Papakipos with those of Shariat/Nolet/Jackson. One would have been motivated to do this in order to determine how relevant a target user is for a given ad, and how much should ultimately be spent to provide them with an ad.
Finally, neither Shariat/Nolet/Jackson nor Papakipos disclose a method for encrypting, by the server, the augmented bid request.
Huang, however, discloses a method for encrypting, by the server, the augmented bid request. (Paragraph 6. The system receives ad requests from an advertiser and bids associated with the ad requests. The data is then encrypted with an identification key.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of Huang with those of Shariat and Papakipos. One would have been motivated to do this in order to secure the advertiser’s bids.
Relevant Prior Art
Though not cited in the above references, the following references are nevertheless deemed to be relevant to Applicant’s disclosures:
Knapp et al. (20150120468), directed to managing bids in a real-time auction for advertisements.
Yan et al. (20140344073), directed to real-time advertisement bidding.
Simmons et al. (20110040611), directed to using competitive algorithms for the prediction and pricing of online ad opportunities.
Saifee et al. (11276088), directed to a method for online real-time auctions of ad inventory.
Garcia-Martinez et al. (20140229273), directed to initiating real-time bidding based on expected revenue from bids.
Response to Arguments
The previous objection has been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of the claims under 35 USC 101, however, are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a judicial exception because the actual performance of advertising, marketing, or sales activities is not recited in the claims, and that steps directed to augmenting a bid request do not, without more, constitute a method of organizing human activity. Applicant further argues that under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements of "appending the proprietary data to the augmented bid request" and "formatting the adjusted augmented bid request into a standardized, augmented bid request" integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to Applicant's Prong One argument, the claims need not recite the actual performance of advertising or sales transactions in order to be directed to an abstract idea categorized as a method of organizing human activity. The 2019 PEG makes clear that claims directed to commercial interactions — including advertising and marketing activities — fall within this grouping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The claims here are directed to collecting, determining, and organizing user data for the purpose of adjusting bids in an online advertising auction — a quintessentially commercial interaction. The fact that the claims recite these steps in the context of a bid request does not remove them from the category of commercial interactions; it merely situates the abstract idea within that commercial context.
With respect to Applicant's Prong Two argument, the Examiner is not persuaded that "appending" and "formatting" integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These steps amount to organizing and structuring data — conventional data manipulation operations that do not improve the functioning of the computer or any underlying technology. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Applicant's argument that transmitting the adjusted bid request constitutes a particular solution to a technical problem is unpersuasive, as transmitting data over a network is itself well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that does not transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The claims as a whole merely use generic computer components to perform the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
In response to Applicant’s traversal of Examiner’s use of official notice for claim 2, the aforementioned art rejection has been included.
The previous double patenting rejection has been sustained in light of Applicant’s failure to file a terminal disclaimer.
Finally, Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection(s) under 35 USC 102 and/or 103 are rendered moot in view of the revised grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by the amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C BUSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621