DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicants application filing received on November 22, 2024. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending in the instant application. The application is a Continuation of U.S. Patent Application 17/580,742 filed on January 21, 2022, now U.S. Patent 12,182,742, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional application 63/103,089, filed on January 21, 2021.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the copy of Fig. 10 is not clear and illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention (e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims include a system or “apparatus”, method of “process”, or product or “article of manufacture” and is a decentralized AI for standardizing production of housing or other buildings which is a process (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system Claim 20 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 1 and product Claim 12. Claim Y recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold)
causing one or more processers to execute instructions encoded on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, such that upon execution, the one or more processors perform operations of:
receiving pre-defined objectives according to a master contract, the pre-defined objectives including at least standardized production of one or more standardized building modules;
receiving, from a master knowledge generator, Workforce specific data as related to fulfillment of the pre-defined objectives;
receiving, from an integrated knowledge base, real-property information related to fulfillment of the pre-defined objectives;
generating a standardized work order (STANWO) recommendation for the Workforce based on the Workforce specific data and the real-property information;
receiving production data on the Workforce while the Workforce is executing at least a portion of the STANWO recommendation; and
updating an Electronic Building Component Master for the Workforce based on the production data.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Receiving objectives from a contract about standardized building, receiving specific data regarding the objectives, receiving property information, generating a work order recommendation, receiving production data relative to the recommendation, and updating a master file recites a commercial interaction. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The decentralized AI system including one or more processors to execute instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium in Claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The computer program product including a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions executed by a processor in Claim 12 appears to be just software. Claims 1 and 12 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Mental Process”. Receiving objectives from a contract about standardized building, receiving specific data regarding the objectives, receiving property information, generating a work order recommendation, receiving production data relative to the recommendation, and updating a master file recites concepts performed in the human mind. But for the “computer implemented AI system” and “one or more processors to execute instructions encoded on a non-transitory computer-readable medium” language, the claim encompasses a user determining objectives from a contract for building, receiving and evaluating data to complete objectives relating to property, generating workorder data, and updating the master plan in accordance with the workorders using his/her mind and/or pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a computer and memory executing a software application does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The decentralized AI system including one or more processors to execute instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium in Claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The computer program product including a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions executed by a processor in Claim 12 appears to be just software. Claims 1 and 12 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite a decentralized AI system including one or more processors and associated memory (Claims 1 and 20) and/or a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having executable instructions encoded thereon (Claim 12). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 12, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0104] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices (the decentralized CPS System can be embodied in any device(s) that operates to perform the functions as described herein as applicable to the particular application, such as a desktop computer, a mobile or smart phone, a tablet computer, a computer embodied in a mobile platform, or any other device or devices that can individually and/or collectively execute the instructions to perform the related operations/processes as may be necessary to implement the invention as described herein. ) and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 12 and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 12 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims include steps or processes which are similar to that disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(d), (f), (g), and/or (h) which include activities and functions the courts have determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner, or as insignificant extra solution activity, or as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims 2-11 and 13-19 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-12, and 15-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,182,742. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming the same invention.
Claim 1 can be drawn to claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,182,742, specifically A decentralized artificially intelligent cyber-physical system for standardized production of standardized building modules, comprising:
one or more processors and associated memory, the memory being a non-transitory computer-readable medium having executable instructions encoded thereon, such that upon execution of the instructions, the one or more processors perform operations of:
receiving pre-defined objectives according to a master contract, the pre-defined objectives including at least standardized production of one or more standardized building modules;
receiving, from a master knowledge generator, Workforce specific data as related to fulfillment of the pre-defined objectives;
receiving, from an integrated knowledge base, real-property information related to fulfillment of the pre-defined objectives;
generating a standardized work order (STANWO) recommendation for the Workforce based on the Workforce specific data and the real-property information;
receiving production data on the Workforce while the Workforce is executing at least a portion of the STANWO recommendation;
updating an Electronic Building Component Master for the Workforce based on the production data; and
causing one or more automated Workforce components to begin physically producing one or more modular components for the one or more building modules based on the STANWO recommendation.
Claim 4 can be drawn to claim 3 of U.S. Patent 12,182,742, specifically one or more computer process system (CPS) nodes, the one or more CPS nodes being emergency response sensors that are operable for monitoring the one or more automated Workforce components;
Claim 6 can be drawn to claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,182,742, specifically further comprising an operation of altering the STANWO based on the production data and causing the one or more automated Workforce components to execute an altered STANWO.
Claim 7 can be drawn to claim 5 of U.S. Patent 12,182,742, specifically wherein the real-property information includes at least some of aggregated and verified geospatial information on jurisdictional zones, property lines, population information, and geospatial regulatory information.
Claim 8 can be drawn to claim 6 of U.S. Patent 12,182,742, specifically wherein the master knowledge generator checks the personalized STANWO recommendation against a regulatory database to ensure regulatory compliance, such that if the STANWO is within regulatory compliance, then generating instructions to cause the one or more automated Workforce components to execute the at least a portion of the STANWO recommendation.
Claim 9 can be drawn to claim 7 of U.S. Patent 12,182,742, specifically further comprising a computer-assisted acquisition (CAA) module, the CAA module operable for performing operations of: receiving parameters detailing a resource type used to acquire data; receiving parameters detailing a data type and condition of data to acquire; receiving performance information from a device to capture the data; transferring the data that has been captured to a processing module that allocates the data to a program (CAX) for machine learning and deep learning analysis; reporting on the data obtained using a report module; and archiving the data using an archive module.
Claim 10 can be drawn to claim 8 of U.S. Patent 12,182,742, specifically further comprising decentralized computer-assisted processing (CAP) module, the CAP module operable for performing operations of: receiving parameters detailing computer resources needed to access additional data; receiving parameters detailing a source and data type to acquire the additional data; receiving parameters detailing conditions to acquire the additional data; updating a Workforce data record in the private database with the additional data; transferring the additional data to other computer processing modules for machine learning and deep learning analysis and storage; reporting on the data using the report module; and archiving the data using the archive module.
Claim 11 can be drawn to claim 9 of U.S. Patent 12,182,742, specifically further comprising a computer-assisted data operating algorithms (CAD) module, the CAD module operable for performing operations of: receiving parameters, from a computer-assisted program detailing the data, a machine learning and deep learning analysis of the data, a type of the data, a source of the data and logic needed to conduct decentralized artificial intelligence routines that extract abstract features from the data and augment decision making for building purposes; receiving parameters detailing the conditions to initiate the decentralized artificial intelligence routines; updating a Workforce data record with the additionally acquired decentralized artificial intelligence/deep learning information obtained; updating other databases within the computer infrastructure with the additionally acquired decentralized artificial intelligence/deep learning information obtained; updating the newly acquired decentralized artificial intelligence/deep learning information obtained to other computer processing modules for additional machine learning and deep learning analysis and storage; reporting on the machine learning and deep learning analysis and decentralized artificial intelligence/deep learning information obtained using the report module; and archiving the machine learning and deep learning analysis and decentralized artificial intelligence/deep learning information obtained.
Claim 12 can be drawn to claim 10 of U.S. Patent 12,182,742, specifically A computer program product for decentralized artificially intelligent cyber-physical system for standardized production of standardized building modules, the computer program product comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium having executable instructions encoded thereon, such that upon execution of the instructions by one or more processors, the one or more processors perform operations of: receiving pre-defined objectives according to a master contract, the pre-defined objectives including at least standardized production of one or more standardized building modules; receiving, from a master knowledge generator, Workforce specific data as related to fulfillment of the pre-defined objectives; receiving, from an integrated knowledge base, real-property information related to fulfillment of the pre-defined objectives; generating a standardized work order (STANWO) recommendation for the Workforce based on the Workforce specific data and the real-property information; receiving production data on the Workforce while the Workforce is executing at least a portion of the STANWO recommendation; updating an Electronic Building Component Master for the Workforce based on the production data; and causing one or more automated Workforce components to begin physically producing one or more modular components for the one or more building modules based on the STANWO recommendation.
Claim 15 can be drawn to claim 12 of U.S. Patent 12,182,742, specifically further comprising instructions for altering the STANWO based on the production data and causing the one or more automated Workforce components to execute an altered STANWO.
Claim 16 can be drawn to claim 13 of U.S. Patent 12,182,742, specifically wherein the real-property information includes at least some of aggregated and verified geospatial information on jurisdictional zones, property lines, population information, and geospatial regulatory information.
Claim 17 can be drawn to claim 14 of U.S. Patent 12,182,742, specifically wherein the master knowledge generator checks the personalized STANWO recommendation against a regulatory database to ensure regulatory compliance, such that if the STANWO is within regulatory compliance, then generating instructions to cause the one or more automated Workforce components to execute the at least a portion of the STANWO recommendation.
Claim 18 can be drawn to claim 15 of U.S. Patent 12,182,742, specifically further comprising instructions for operating one or more computer process system (CPS) nodes, such that the one or more CPS nodes are operable for monitoring and generating production data for the one or more automated Workforce components.
Claim 19 can be drawn to claim 16 of U.S. Patent 12,182,742, specifically wherein one or more of the CPS nodes are emergency response sensors that, when activated, cause an emergency response system to activate a physical response to mitigate an emergency as sensed by the emergency response sensors.
Claim 20 can be drawn to claim 17 of U.S. Patent 12,182,742, specifically A computer implemented method for a decentralized artificially intelligent cyber-physical system for standardized production of standardized building modules, the method comprising an act of: causing one or more processers to execute instructions encoded on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, such that upon execution, the one or more processors perform operations of: receiving pre-defined objectives according to a master contract, the pre-defined objectives including at least standardized production of one or more standardized building modules; receiving, from a master knowledge generator, Workforce specific data as related to fulfillment of the pre-defined objectives; receiving, from an integrated knowledge base, real-property information related to fulfillment of the pre-defined objectives; generating a standardized work order (STANWO) recommendation for the Workforce based on the Workforce specific data and the real-property information; receiving production data on the Workforce while the Workforce is executing at least a portion of the STANWO recommendation; updating an Electronic Building Component Master for the Workforce based on the production data; and causing one or more automated Workforce components to begin physically producing one or more modular components for the one or more building modules based on the STANWO recommendation.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,182,742. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 2 is a copy of claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,182,742, A decentralized artificially intelligent cyber-physical system for standardized production of standardized building modules, comprising:
one or more processors and associated memory, the memory being a non-transitory computer-readable medium having executable instructions encoded thereon, such that upon execution of the instructions, the one or more processors perform operations of:
receiving pre-defined objectives according to a master contract, the pre-defined objectives including at least standardized production of one or more standardized building modules;
receiving, from a master knowledge generator, Workforce specific data as related to fulfillment of the pre-defined objectives;
receiving, from an integrated knowledge base, real-property information related to fulfillment of the pre-defined objectives;
generating a standardized work order (STANWO) recommendation for the Workforce based on the Workforce specific data and the real-property information;
receiving production data on the Workforce while the Workforce is executing at least a portion of the STANWO recommendation; updating an Electronic Building Component Master for the Workforce based on the production data; and
causing one or more automated Workforce components to begin physically producing one or more modular components for the one or more building modules based on the STANWO recommendation.
Claim 3 is substantially similar to claim 2 of U.S. Patent 12,182,742, wherein causing one or more automated Workforce components to begin physically producing one or more modular components includes an operation selected from a group consisting of causing a robotic system to weld two building components together, cutting building components, geographic movement of one or more building components, and painting one or more building components.
Claim 5 is substantially similar to claim 3 of U.S. Patent 12,182,742, A decentralized artificially intelligent cyber-physical system for standardized production of standardized building modules, comprising: one or more processors and associated memory, the memory being a non-transitory computer-readable medium having executable instructions encoded thereon, such that upon execution of the instructions, the one or more processors perform operations of: receiving pre-defined objectives according to a master contract, the pre-defined objectives including at least standardized production of one or more standardized building modules; receiving, from a master knowledge generator, Workforce specific data as related to fulfillment of the pre-defined objectives; receiving, from an integrated knowledge base, real-property information related to fulfillment of the pre-defined objectives; generating a standardized work order (STANWO) recommendation for the Workforce based on the Workforce specific data and the real-property information; receiving production data on the Workforce while the Workforce is executing at least a portion of the STANWO recommendation; updating an Electronic Building Component Master for the Workforce based on the production data; one or more computer process system (CPS) nodes, the one or more CPS nodes being emergency response sensors that are operable for monitoring the one or more automated Workforce components; and when the emergency response sensors are activated, the one or more processors further comprise an operation of causing an emergency response system to activate a physical response to mitigate an emergency as sensed by the emergency response sensors.
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 10 of U.S. Patent 12,182,742, A computer program product for decentralized artificially intelligent cyber-physical system for standardized production of standardized building modules, the computer program product comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium having executable instructions encoded thereon, such that upon execution of the instructions by one or more processors, the one or more processors perform operations of: receiving pre-defined objectives according to a master contract, the pre-defined objectives including at least standardized production of one or more standardized building modules; receiving, from a master knowledge generator, Workforce specific data as related to fulfillment of the pre-defined objectives; receiving, from an integrated knowledge base, real-property information related to fulfillment of the pre-defined objectives; generating a standardized work order (STANWO) recommendation for the Workforce based on the Workforce specific data and the real-property information; receiving production data on the Workforce while the Workforce is executing at least a portion of the STANWO recommendation; updating an Electronic Building Component Master for the Workforce based on the production data; and causing one or more automated Workforce components to begin physically producing one or more modular components for the one or more building modules based on the STANWO recommendation.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 11 of U.S. Patent 12,182,742, wherein causing one or more automated Workforce components to begin physically producing one or more modular components includes an operation selected from a group consisting of causing a robotic system to weld two building components together, cutting building components, geographic movement of one or more building components, and painting one or more building components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art generally refers to building and construction work orders including associated methods and systems including standardization.
U.S. Publication 2025/0299136 A1 - This invention presents a comprehensive platform designed for the generation, management, and execution of intercompany agreements through an automated, blockchain-based system. It employs AI and NLP technologies to assist in drafting customized agreements, taking into account international laws and corporate policies. The platform converts these agreements into immutable, transparent smart contracts deployed on a blockchain network, serving as a single source of truth. It ensures real-time compliance, automatic enforcement, and efficient dispute resolution by continuously monitoring contract performance. This integration streamlines financial processes, enhances regulatory compliance, and increases operational efficiency in managing complex intercompany relationships.
U.S. Patent 9,611,637 - A prefabricated foldable building module including a central core comprising first and second opposing fixed walls with roof and floor beams interposed therebetween; a plurality of vertically foldably connected walls mounted upon the first and second walls foldable out therefrom; a pair of roof panels, each foldably connected adjacent said roof beam; a pair of floor panels each foldably connected adjacent floor beam: characterized in that the wall panels, roof panels and floor panels may be folded out from their supporting structures in a defined sequence to form an enclosed/partly enclosed building structure, and may be re-folded in reverse sequence to original configuration. Standard modules can be stretched, or joined side by side, end to end or one on top of the other to form larger buildings.
U.S. Patent 7,835,934 - A method of managing construction work including creating a work request regarding a building in a database coupled to an owner user interface and a builder user interface, assigning the work request created in the database to a trade contractor to complete the work request, and tracking the status of the work request in the database. The method further includes storing the work request, the trade contractor, and the status in the database for subsequent access via at least one of the owner user interface and the builder user interface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 February 18, 2026