DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 06/12/2026.
Claims 1, 12, 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 06/12/2026:
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection” in pages 8-11.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the presence of tangible components such as a processor, camera, POS terminal, storage unit, and communication interface does not, by itself, remove the claims form the abstract idea analysis. The claims recite obtaining information regarding customer conduct, evaluation that conduct according to predetermined criteria, and reporting the conduct when a threshold is satisfied. Such limitations concern evaluating and managing customer behavior according to rules or criteria, which falls within certain methods of organizing human activity and encompasses mental evaluation.
Applicant’s reliance on Enfish and the warning threshold limitation is likewise unpersuasive. Although Applicant asserts that threshold reduces false accusations and reporting frequency, the claimed threshold changes when detected customer conduct is reported, rather than improving the operation of the processor, camera, image processing technology, communications, or POS terminal itself.
The amended storage unit and communication interface limitations likewise store the criteria used in the determination and receive/communicate the information and resulting report. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or otherwise transform the claimed behavioral evaluation and reporting process into a technological improvement. Accordingly, the arguments are not persuasive, and the § 101 rejection is maintained.
Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments, submitted under the title “35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection” in pages 11-14, with respect to claims, filled on 06/12/2026, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response, the Examiner first emphasizes that the newly amended limitations are narrower in scope than the features previously presented in claims 1, 12 and 15. Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended limitations has been considered, however the argument is primarily raised in support of the amendments to independent claims 1, 12 and 15, and therefore is believed to be fully addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth below, which incorporates a new reference, Yamaguchi (US 20240251061 A1) to teach the new limitations of claims 1, 12 and 15. Accordingly, the amendment and supporting arguments are believed to be fully addressed via the new ground of rejection set forth under §103 below.
Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend on the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations in view of the prior art and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations in view of the prior art will be presented later in this Office Action.
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 without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-11 recite a device, which is directed to a machine.
Claims 12-14 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Claims 15-20 recite a computer-readable, non-transitory medium storing program instructions, which is directed to a manufacture.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claims 1, 12 and 15 recite the abstract idea of fraud detection.
1) These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite following rules or instructions to display/output a report/notification of a possible fraudulent act based on analyzing gathered data, which is considered as concepts teaching managing personal behavior or relationships or interaction between people by following rules or instructions to detect fraudulent actions.
2) These claims recite a mental process. The claims recite a mental process of data collection-analysis-display (MPEP 2106.04(a)a(2)(III); Electric Power Group v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350). The Examiner find the recited claims to be similar to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which the courts have also found to recite a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: a detection device comprising: a storage unit, a communication interface connected to a point-of-sale terminal, a camera, and a monitoring terminal; and a processor, signals,
Claim 12: a registration system, comprising: a point-of-sale terminal, a camera, a detection device including: a storage unit, a communication interface connected to the point-of-sale terminal and the camera, and connectable to a monitoring terminal; and a processor, signals,
Claim 15: A computer-readable, non-transitory medium storing program instructions which when executed by a processor of a detection device for a registration system causes the detection device, a camera via a communication interface, point-of-sale terminal, signals,
The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-14 and 16-20 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 12 and 15 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 2-11, 13-14 and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 12 and 15 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claim 2: the detection device, the processor, the monitoring terminal,
Claim 3: the detection device, communication interface is connected to the point-of-sale terminal, the camera, and the monitoring terminal via a network.
Claim 4: the detection device, network.
Claim 5: the detection device, communication interface is connected to a plurality of point-of-sale terminal and a plurality of cameras,
Claim 6: the detection device, the communication interface is connected to a plurality of point-of-sale terminals, a plurality of cameras, and the monitoring terminal.
Claim 7: the detection device, signals, the point-of-sale terminal,
Claim 8, 9, 10, 11: the detection device,
Claim 13: registration system, the processor, the monitoring terminal,
Claim 14: registration system, signals, the point-of-sale terminal,
Claim 16: the computer-readable, non-transitory medium, the monitoring terminal,
Claim 17: the computer-readable, non-transitory medium, signals, the point-of-sale terminal,
Claims 18, 19, 20: the computer-readable, non-transitory medium
However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of detecting fraudulent actions, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1-20, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kundu et al. (US 20230215180 A1, hereinafter “Kundu”) in view of Gotanda et al. (US 20230259944 A1, hereinafter “Gotanda”) further in view of Yamaguchi (US 20240251061 A1, hereinafter “Yamaguchi”).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 15. Kundu discloses a detection device for a registration system, the detection device comprising:
a communication interface connectable to a point-of-sale terminal, a camera, and a monitoring terminal; and a processor configured to: (Kundu, As seen in Fig. 1, [0018]; “the invention include any type of computerized device, workstation, handheld or laptop computer, POS or transaction terminal, or the like configured with software and/or circuitry (e.g., a processor) to process any or all of the method operations disclosed herein. The system may include the video camera(s) for obtaining the video, or the system may be a standalone computer that receives as input video data and scan data collected from one or more POS terminals in one or more retail locations)
receive a camera image from the camera via the communication interface, the camera image depicting a customer at the point-of-sale terminal; (Kundu, [0042]; “one or more overhead video cameras that capture video of the transaction area 301 ... transaction monitor 32 in this example receives, as input, video data 320 from the video source 30”, [0086]; “an operator object (i.e. the portion of video data 320 containing the operator 308)”, [0093]; “and modeling the operator such as the cashier 308 (or a customer 305 if the environment 300 in FIG. 1 is a self checkout terminal 34)”)
receive point-of-sale event signals from the point-of-sale terminal via the communication interface, the point-of-sale event signals corresponding to operations of the customer at the point-of-sale terminal; (Kundu, [0042]; “transaction monitor 32 in this example receives , as input, … transaction data 34 from the transaction terminal 34 … the transaction monitor 32 as receiving a transaction data 330 and video data 320 directly from the video source 30 and the transaction terminal 34”)
determine, based on the received camera image and the received point-of-sale event signals, whether a reportable act has occurred in the operations of the customer at the point-of-sale terminal; and (Kundu, [0043]; “transaction monitor 32 operates to identify suspicious activity associated with the transaction area 301 such as sweethearting or pass-through activities, by comparing the video data 320 and corresponding transaction data 330 in order to identify and report suspicious activity”)
Kundu substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Kundu fails to explicitly disclose the “a storage unit storing warning threshold occurrence numbers for a plurality of reportable acts; output a report of the reportable act, via the communication interface, to the point-of-sale terminal if a warning threshold occurrence number of occurrences set for the reportable act in the storage unit has been met or exceeded during the operations of the customer at the point- of-sale terminal”. However, Gotanda teaches
a storage unit storing warning threshold occurrence numbers for a plurality of reportable acts; (Gotanda, [0054]; “fraud memory 524 is a region for storing a plurality of fraud data in correlation with recognition time. The fraud data includes a fraud division, the number of times fraud has been detected in the transaction, and a fraud recognition image. The fraud division is information for identifying a fraud type. The number of times value reflects the number of detected fraud occurrences. The fraud recognition image is an image in which a fraud type can be recognized”)
output a report of the reportable act, via the communication interface, to the point-of-sale terminal if a warning threshold occurrence number of occurrences set for the reportable act in the storage unit has been met or exceeded during the operations of the customer at the point- of-sale terminal, (Gotanda, [0104]; "In ACT 67, the processor 51 checks whether the counter value is equal to or larger than a threshold N. If the counter value ("number of times") is equal to or greater than the threshold N, the processor 51 proceeds to ACT 68. In ACT 68, the processor 51 outputs the fraud recognition image and a warning message for the attendant corresponding to the determined fraud division ("91") to the attendant terminal 20")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kundu to include a storage unit storing warning threshold occurrence numbers for a plurality of reportable acts; output a report of the reportable act, via the communication interface, to the point-of-sale terminal if a warning threshold occurrence number of occurrences set for the reportable act in the storage unit has been met or exceeded during the operations of the customer at the point- of-sale terminal, as taught by Gotanda, where this would be performed in order to provide development of techniques and equipment that can prevent fraudulent acts of customers has been demanded. See Gotanda [0003].
The combination of Kundu in view of Gotanda substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination of Kundu in view of Gotanda fail to explicitly disclose the “being operated by the customer via the communication interface and the report causing the point-of-sale terminal to provide a notification of the reportable act to the customer”. However, Yamaguchi teaches
being operated by the customer via the communication interface and the report causing the point-of-sale terminal to provide a notification of the reportable act to the customer. (Yamaguchi teaches the claimed threshold conditioned customer notification by determining that a customer may commit fraud when the customer is looking around a predetermined number of times or more ([0054], and, responsive to that determination, causing the display unit of the self-checkout machine being operated by that customer to display a warning sign, see [0057-0059], thereby notifying the customer that he/she is being monitored, see [0060])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kundu to include being operated by the customer via the communication interface and the report causing the point-of-sale terminal to provide a notification of the reportable act to the customer, as taught by Yamaguchi, where this would be performed in order to notify the customer that the customer’s activity is being monitored and thereby reduce the customer’s temptation to commit fraud, as expressly taught by Yamaguchi. See Yamaguchi, [0054], [0057-0060].
Regarding claims 2, 13 and 16. The combination of Kundu in view of Gotanda further in view of Yamaguchi disclose the detection device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
output a report of the reportable act to the monitoring terminal whenever the reportable act is determined to have occurred. (Kundu, [0043]; “the transaction monitor 32 operates to identify suspicious activity associated with the transaction area 301 … identify and report suspicious activity”, [0020]; an indication of fraudulent or suspicious activity are flagged and the video data for only those transactions can then be further reviewed using other techniques, such as human review, to confirm the fraudulent or suspicious activity as initially identified by the automated (i.e. non-human or machine-based)”)
Regarding claim 3. The combination of Kundu in view of Gotanda further in view of Yamaguchi disclose the detection device according to claim 1, wherein the communication interface is connected to the point-of-sale terminal, the camera, and the monitoring terminal via a network. (Kundu, [0038]; “Example environment 300 depicts a retail establishment in which customers 305 can purchase items 307. A transaction terminal 34 such as a point-of-sale terminal or cash register is under control of an operator 308”, [0042]; “The environment 300 also includes a video source 30 such as one or more overhead video cameras that capture video of the transaction area 301 … The transaction monitor 32 in this example receives, as input, video data 320 from the video source 30 as well as transaction data 34 from the transaction terminal 34”)
Regarding claim 4. The combination of Kundu in view of Gotanda further in view of Yamaguchi disclose the detection device according to claim 3, wherein
Kundu substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Kundu fails to explicitly disclose the “the network is a local area network”. However, Gotanda teaches
the network is a local area network. (Gotanda, [0049]; “The attendant terminal 20 is connected to the network interface 57 via the communication network 40. The network interface 57 performs data communication with the attendant terminal 20”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kundu to include the network is a local area network, as taught by Gotanda, where this would be performed in order to provide development of techniques and equipment that can prevent fraudulent acts of customers has been demanded. See Gotanda [0003].
Regarding claim 5. The combination of Kundu in view of Gotanda further in view of Yamaguchi disclose the detection device according to claim 1, wherein
Kundu substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Kundu fails to explicitly disclose the “the communication interface is connectable to a plurality of point-of-sale terminals and a plurality of cameras”. However, Gotanda teaches
the communication interface is connectable to a plurality of point-of-sale terminals and a plurality of cameras. (Gotanda, [0027]; “the monitoring apparatus 50 monitors a settler based on information such as an image captured by a camera 60 … The monitoring apparatuses 50 are connected to the attendant terminal 20 via the communication network 40 and are capable of outputting alert signals to the attendant terminal 20. The monitoring apparatuses 50 may be connected to the attendant terminal 20 via a means other than the communication network 40”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kundu to include the communication interface is connectable to a plurality of point-of-sale terminals and a plurality of cameras, as taught by Gotanda, where this would be performed in order to provide development of techniques and equipment that can prevent fraudulent acts of customers has been demanded. See Gotanda [0003].
Regarding claim 6. The combination of Kundu in view of Gotanda further in view of Yamaguchi disclose the detection device according to claim 1, wherein
Kundu substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Kundu fails to explicitly disclose the “the communication interface is connected to a plurality of point-of-sale terminals, a plurality of cameras, and the monitoring terminal”. However, Gotanda teaches
the communication interface is connected to a plurality of point-of-sale terminals, a plurality of cameras, and the monitoring terminal. (Gotanda, [0027]; “the monitoring apparatus 50 monitors a settler based on information such as an image captured by a camera 60 … he monitoring apparatuses 50 are connected to the attendant terminal 20 via the communication network 40 and are capable of outputting alert signals to the attendant terminal 20. The monitoring apparatuses 50 may be connected to the attendant terminal 20 via a means other than the communication network 40”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kundu to include the communication interface is connected to a plurality of point-of-sale terminals, a plurality of cameras, and the monitoring terminal, as taught by Gotanda, where this would be performed in order to provide development of techniques and equipment that can prevent fraudulent acts of customers has been demanded. See Gotanda [0003].
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 17. The combination of Kundu in view of Gotanda further in view of Yamaguchi disclose the detection device according to claim 1, wherein
Kundu substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Kundu fails to explicitly disclose the “the output of the report occurs when the point-of-sale event signals indicate the customer has requested to begin a payment operation at the point-of-sale terminal”. However, Gotanda teaches
the output of the report occurs when the point-of-sale event signals indicate the customer has requested to begin a payment operation at the point-of-sale terminal. (Gotanda, [0150]; “every time a fraud is detected, a fraud recognition image is output. However, the timing for outputting such an image is not limited to this. For example, the fraud recognition image may be output when the settler touches the checkout key Bx, that is, when the checkout start is requested. In such a case, upon determining YES in ACT 74 in FIG. 13 , the processor 51 may omit the processing in ACT 76 to ACT 78 and proceed to the processing in ACT 45 in FIG. 10”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kundu to include the output of the report occurs when the point-of-sale event signals indicate the customer has requested to begin a payment operation at the point-of-sale terminal, as taught by Gotanda, where this would be performed in order to provide development of techniques and equipment that can prevent fraudulent acts of customers has been demanded. See Gotanda [0003].
Regarding claims 8 and 18. The combination of Kundu in view of Gotanda further in view of Yamaguchi disclose the detection device according to claim 1, wherein the reportable act is an omitted scan event. (Kundu, [0044]; “the transaction monitor 32 applies automated (i.e. non-human) video analysis to at least a portion or segment of the overhead video data 320 to detect the presence of at least one item 307 associated with the transaction … items 307 read or scanned by the terminal 34) to identify items in possession of the customer 305 that were not purchased at the transaction terminal (i.e. that were passed through the transaction area 301 without being scanned or entered into or read by the transaction terminal 34)”)
Regarding claim 11. The combination of Kundu in view of Gotanda further in view of Yamaguchi disclose the detection device according to claim 1, wherein the reportable act is a cart-bottom merchandise error. (Kundu, [0105]; “a method for adapting the background image is detailed below in the discussion adaptation for moving backgrounds. The system can also incorporate bottom-of-basket detection or in-basket detection to identify from an elevated view items existing underneath or within a possibly moving shopping cart, for example”)
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kundu in view of Gotanda further in view of Yamaguchi furthermore in view of Kundu et al (US 20180165733 A1, hereinafter “Kundu733”).
Regarding claims 9 and 19. The combination of Kundu in view of Gotanda further in view of Yamaguchi disclose the detection device according to claim 1, wherein
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fail to explicitly disclose the “the reportable act is a weight error”. However, Kundu733 teaches
the reportable act is a weight error. (Kundu733, [0120]; “In response to detecting a suspicious sensor event such as an overall increase in a weight of the retail items placed in the item carrier apparatus 150 without a corresponding transaction record indicating scanning of the respective retail item in the log of transaction data 122-D, the analyzer 323 marks this sensor event as potentially a potentially suspicious sensor event. In such an instance, if there is no corresponding transaction in the log of transaction data, the analyzer 323 outputs occurrence of the suspicious events to aggregate analyzer resource 350”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kundu to include the reportable act is a weight error, as taught by Kundu733, where this would be performed in order to provide an accurate and precise count or change-in-count of the items present in the cart at any given time. See Kundu733 [0026].
Regarding claims 10 and 20. The combination of Kundu in view of Gotanda further in view of Yamaguchi disclose the detection device according to claim 1, wherein
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fail to explicitly disclose the “the reportable act is an expensive merchandise error”. However, Kundu733 teaches
the reportable act is an expensive merchandise error. (Kundu733, [0161]; “Another way of detecting fraudulent activity is to utilize a retail environment's planogram in order to make inferences about the items being taken by the customer. The planogram indicates a location of items in the retail environment. For instance, a store's planogram may indicate that a customer is located nearby razor blades or other valuable or highly stolen items. When a customer takes an item of merchandise and puts it in the cart, this interaction can be detected by the automated visual processing approach … During or upon completion of that transaction by that customer, the system can evaluate the transaction log data for that customer's purchase to check if razor blades (or some other item which would have been nearby according to the planogram) are part of his or her transaction log. If they are not, this may be indicative of loss for the retailer”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kundu to include the reportable act is an expensive merchandise error, as taught by Kundu733, where this would be performed in order to provide an accurate and precise count or change-in-count of the items present in the cart at any given time. See Kundu733 [0026].
Conclusion
1. 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.
2. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights