DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgement
This final office action is in response to the amendment filed on 04/06/2026.
Status of Claims
Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 have been amended.
Claims 6-8 have been added,
Claims 1, 2, and 4-8 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/06/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 and 102 rejections of the claims have been fully considered. The Applicant argues the following:
(1) As per the 101 rejection, the Applicant argues that when the claim is considered as a whole, the features of the claim integrate the alleged judicial exception into a method that facilitates the selection of suitable robots for introduction to a facility requiring potentially diverse service needs. When viewed a combination, the additional elements yield a claim that, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner maintains the position that amended claim 1 is directed to the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, as the claims describe a process of facilitating a commercial interaction between a requester and a supplier. Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity can encompass the activity of a single person (e.g. a person following a set of instructions), activity that involve multiple people (e.g. a commercial interaction), and certain activity between a person and a computer (e.g. a method of anonymous loan shopping). As per MPEP 2106.04(a), a claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The Examiner also submits that the additional elements recited in the claims and listed in Steps 2A(2) and 2B do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more because the additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer or improve another technology. The additional elements reflect the use of computer technology to perform an abstract idea of matching requestors with suppliers. However, this computer technology is not being improved as a results of implementing the Applicant’s method. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
(2) As per the 102 rejection, the Applicant argues that Hirai fails to anticipate the subject matter of amended claim 1.
The Examiner finds the Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Therefore, the 102 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground of 103 rejection is made for claim 1. See details below.
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 .
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, 2, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, “Matching Method, Matching System, and Storage Medium”, is directed to an abstract idea, specifically Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination provide mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Step 1: Claims 1, 2, and 4-8 are directed to a statutory category, namely a process (claims 1, 2, and 6-8), a machine (claim 4), and a manufacture (claim 5).
Step 2A (1): Claims 1, 2, and 4-8 are directed to an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, based on the following claim limitations: “matches/matching an introduction-desired person of a robot and a supplier of the robot… the matching method/system comprising:
inputting/acquire request information relating to a robot introduction…; inputting/acquire supply information relating to the robot …; transmitting the request information…; matching/match the introduction-desired person with the supplier by calculating a matching score indicating a degree of matching between the request information and the supply information based on a number of conditions indicated in the request information that are satisfied by contents of the supply information; and transmitting/transmit a matching result of the matching to at least one of the introduction-desired person or the supplier matched with the introduction-desired person, wherein the matching result includes at least one of contact information of the supplier, or contact information of the introduction-desired person (claims 1, 4, and 5); wherein at least one of the introduction-desired person and the supplier inputs a score evaluating another one of the introduction-desired person or the supplier, the score being evaluable by the other one of the introduction-desired person and the supplier (claim 2); wherein the contact information of the supplier or of the introduction-desired person includes at least one of a telephone number, a home page address, or a mail address for contacting the supplier or the introduction-desired person (claim 6); wherein the supply information further includes an operation amount of a service provided by the robot, and the matching method further comprises: estimating at least one of a type or a quantity of robots to be introduced to the facility based on the request information, wherein the request information includes at least one of an area, a scale, and a conveyance amount of the facility, and the estimation of at least one of the type or the quantity of robots to be introduced to the facility based on the operation amount of the service provided by the robot and the at least one of the area, the scale, and the conveyance amount of the facility (claim 7); and wherein the request information includes desired service information indicating services desired from the robot at the facility, and the supply information includes executable service information indicating the services the robot provides, wherein, in a case where the executable service information of the robot from an individual supplier from among the plurality of suppliers is unable to satisfy the desired service information, the information processing device selects two or more suppliers from among the plurality of suppliers for which the executable service information of the robot from each supplier of the two or more suppliers indicates that a combination of the robot from each supplier of the two or more suppliers is able to satisfy the desired service information (claim 8)”. These claims describe a process of facilitating a commercial interaction between people by matching a potential customer of a robot with a supplier of the robot. Therefore, these limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” which includes commercial or legal interactions. Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity can encompass the activity of a single person (e.g. a person following a set of instructions), activity that involve multiple people (e.g. a commercial interaction), and certain activity between a person and a computer (e.g. a method of anonymous loan shopping). Therefore, claims 1, 2, and 4-8 are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Step 2A (2): The claims as a whole do not integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 4, and 5 recite additional elements of “inputting...via operation of a first terminal display of a first terminal used by the introduction-desired person; inputting...via operation of a second terminal display of a second terminal used by the supplier; transmitting the request from the first terminal and transmitting the supply information from the second terminal to an information processing device (claims 1, 4, and 5); a matching system, the matching system comprising a first terminal used by the introduction-desired person; and a second terminal used by the supplier of the robot an information processing device including a processor configured to (claim 4); and a non-transitory storage medium storing a program for executing a matching method (claim 5)”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not recite (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field and (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself and (c) implementing the abstract idea with or by use of a particular machine, (d) effecting a particular transformation or reduction of an article, or (e) applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. These additional elements evaluated individually and in combination are viewed as a computing device that is used to perform the matching process and communicate results. Limitations that recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea are not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, claims 1, 2, and 4-8 as a whole do not include individual or a combination of additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and thus are not patent eligible.
Step 2B: The claims as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims1, 4, and 5 recite additional elements of “inputting...via operation of a first terminal display of a first terminal used by the introduction-desired person; inputting...via operation of a second terminal display of a second terminal used by the supplier; transmitting the request from the first terminal and transmitting the supply information from the second terminal to an information processing device (claims 1, 4, and 5); a matching system, the matching system comprising a first terminal used by the introduction-desired person; and a second terminal used by the supplier of the robot an information processing device including a processor configured to (claim 4); and a non-transitory storage medium storing a program for executing a matching method (claim 5)”. These additional elements evaluated individually and in combination are viewed as mere instructions to apply or implement the abstract idea on a computer. Applying an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, claims 1, 2, and 4-8 as a whole do not include individual or a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and thus are not patent eligible.
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 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, 2, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai et al. (US 2024/0391112 A1) in view of Hicks (US 6,615,184 B1).
As per claims 1 and 5 (Currently Amended), Hirai teaches a matching method and a non-transitory storage medium storing a program for executing a matching method that matches an introduction-desired person of a facility who wishes to introduce a robot to the facility with a supplier of the robot from among a plurality of suppliers, the matching method comprising (Hirai e.g. An information processing method according to one aspect of the present technology includes, by an information processing system for executing matching related to remote operation by a robot that can be remotely operated and an operation terminal that can operate the robot via a network [0008]. A program according to one aspect of the present technology is a program for causing a computer to execute processing, the computer being configured to execute matching related to remote operation by a robot that can be remotely operated and an operation terminal that can operate the robot via a network [0009]. The sequence diagram of FIG. 6 illustrates a sequence diagram between the operator, the management server 15, the requester, and the robot 14 [0132]. First, matching processing between the operator (operation terminal 12) and the requester (robot 14) is executed [0133]. FIG. 7 is a flowchart for explaining the first embodiment of matching processing [0016].):
Hirai teaches inputting request information relating to a robot introduction via operation of a first terminal display of a first terminal used by the introduction-desired person; (Hirai e.g. The information processing system 1 includes a communication terminal 11-1 to a communication terminal 11-p, an operation terminal 12-1 to an operation terminal 12-q, a requester terminal 13-1 to a requester terminal 13-m, a robot 14-1 to a robot 14-n, and a management server 15 (Fig. 2 and [0070]). The requester terminal 13 is an information processing terminal used by the requester to request work or the like. The requester terminal 13 is, for example, a smartphone, a PC, a tablet terminal, or the like [0080]. Specifically, for example, the requester transmits requester information regarding the requester, to the management server 15 [0134]. Note that the requester is not necessarily a natural person, and may be an organization such as a corporation [0086]. In step S101, the requester terminal 13 transmits requester information. Specifically, the control unit 143 generates the requester information on the basis of information or the like input by the requester via the input unit 141 (Fig. 7 and [0160]). The requester information includes, for example, attribute information and work environment information [0161]. For example, the work environment information includes robot information and communication status information [0163]. The robot information is information regarding the robot 14 that executes work that is a target of the requested remote operation. The robot information includes, for example, one or more of identification information, a type, a specification, position information (for example, an installation position or the like), an operation status, an error occurrence status, and the like of the robot 14 [0164].)
Hirai teaches inputting supply information relating to the robot via operation of a second terminal display of a second terminal used by the supplier; (Hirai e.g. The information processing system 1 includes a communication terminal 11-1 to a communication terminal 11-p, an operation terminal 12-1 to an operation terminal 12-q, a requester terminal 13-1 to a requester terminal 13-m, a robot 14-1 to a robot 14-n, and a management server 15 (Fig. 2 and [0070]). The communication terminal 11 is an information processing device used by an operator to undertake work or the like. The communication terminal 11 is, for example, a smartphone, a personal computer (PC), a tablet terminal, or the like [0076]. In addition, the operation terminal 12 may be, for example, a PC, a tablet terminal, a dedicated terminal, or the like [0077]. Note that one operator may own a plurality of communication terminals 11 or may own a plurality of operation terminals 12. Furthermore, a plurality of operators may share the communication terminal 11 and the operation terminal 12 [0078]. The operator transmits operator information regarding the operator to the management server 15 [0135]. The operator is a worker who performs remote operation of the robot. These operators perform various types of work by remotely operating robots in individual fields of healthcare, construction and civil engineering, infrastructure, agriculture, logistics, and manufacturing and processing industries, for example, via the service platform [0065]. In step S111, the communication terminal 11 transmits operator information. Specifically, the control unit 103 generates the operator information on the basis of information input by the operator via the input unit 101, sensor data obtained by the detection unit 102, and the like (Fig. 7 and [0170]).)
Hirai teaches transmitting the request information from the first terminal and transmitting the supply information from the second terminal to an information processing device; (Hirai e.g. FIG. 7 is a flowchart for explaining the first embodiment of matching processing [0016]. In step S101, the requester terminal 13 transmits requester information. Specifically, the control unit 143 generates the requester information on the basis of information or the like input by the requester via the input unit 141 [0160]. The control unit 143 transmits the requester information to the management server 15 via the communication unit 145, and requests registration of the requester information [0169].)
Hirai teaches matching the introduction-desired person with the supplier by calculating a matching score indicating a degree of matching between the request information and the supply information based on a number of conditions indicated in the request information that are satisfied by contents of the supply information; and (Hirai e.g. Next, the requester requests the management server 15 to select an operator to execute a desired work [0138]. The management server 15 selects an operator to which work is to be requested on the basis of ability and an operation environment of the operator, a content of the work, and the like, and requests the selected operator to perform the work [0139]. In step S122, the management server 15 executes operator selection processing (Fig. 7 and [0203]). In a case where the operator satisfies the essential condition or a case where there is no essential condition, the matching unit 211 calculates a matching degree between the selection condition generated in step S151 and the ability and the operation environment of the operator (Fig. 9 and [0215]). At this time, for example, the matching unit 211 may set a priority order in the selection condition, to calculate the matching degree in accordance with the priority order. For example, in a case of calculating the matching degree, the matching unit 211 increases a weight of the matching degree for the selection condition with a high priority order and decreases a weight of the matching degree for the selection condition with a low priority order [0216]. Among the operator candidates extracted using the selection condition, the matching unit 211 determines the operator having the highest matching degree as the operator to which the work is to be requested [0227]. In step S123, the matching unit 211 offers the selected operator to undertake the work [0230].)
Hirai teaches transmitting a matching result of the matching to at least one of the introduction-desired person or the supplier matched with the introduction-desired person (Hirai e.g. The operator determines whether or not to undertake the work, and notifies the management server 15 of a determination result [0140]. In a case where the operator undertakes work, the management server 15 notifies the requester of information regarding the operator, thereby recommending the operator to the requester [0141]. In step S125, the matching unit 211 transmits information regarding the operator who undertakes the work. Specifically, the matching unit 211 generates information (hereinafter, referred to as undertaking operator information) including information regarding ability and an operation environment of the operator who undertakes the work. The communication unit 204 transmits the undertaking operator information to the requester terminal 13 (Fig. 7 and [0239]).), Hirai does not explicitly teach, however, Hicks teaches wherein the matching result includes at least one of contact information of the supplier, or contact information of the introduction-desired person. (Hicks e.g. A server receives supplier information from a supplier including a product/service that the supplier is offering along with a discount for the product/service. The supplier information further includes geographic locations where a customer can physically purchase the product/service, the sale dates, and supplier contact information. The supplier information is stored by the server in a database. The server also receives customer information from a customer including a product/service that the customer wishes to purchase along with a minimum discount that the customer desires for the product/service. The server searches the database for a matching supplier which has supplier information matching the customer information. The server then sends the customer the supplier contact information corresponding to the matching supplier (Abstract).)
The Examiner submits that before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hirai’s matching process to include supplier contact information in the matching results as taught by Hicks in order to provide customers who seek a product or service at a specified discount in a desired geographic area with information relating to suppliers which are offering such a product or service at the specified discount in the desired geographic area (Hicks e.g. col. 2 lines 49-54).
As per claim 2 (Currently Amended), Hirai in view of Hicks teach the matching method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the introduction-desired person and the supplier inputs a score evaluating another one of the introduction-desired person or the supplier, the score being evaluable by the other one of the introduction-desired person and the supplier (Hirai e.g. The information processing unit 216 adds the received requester information to the requester DB accumulated in the storage unit 205. The information processing unit 216 adds the received operator information to the operator DB accumulated in the storage unit 205 [0188]. FIG. 8 illustrates a part of a configuration example of data of the operator DB. The operator DB includes an operator ID, ability information, and operation environment information of each operator [0189]. Note that the operator DB also includes, for example, an evaluation score of each operator, and the like. The evaluation score is, for example, a score indicating evaluation on each operator by the requester who has requested the work. An operator with higher evaluation by the requester has a higher evaluation score, and an operator with lower evaluation by the requester has a lower evaluation score [0193].).
As per claim 4 (Currently Amended) Hirai teaches a matching system that matches an introduction-desired person of a facility who wishes to introduce a robot to the facility with a supplier of the robot from among a plurality of suppliers, the matching system comprising: a first terminal used by the introduction-desired person; and a second terminal used by the supplier of the robot an information processing device including a processor configured to: (Hirai e.g. An information processing system according to one aspect of the present technology is an information processing system for executing matching related to remote operation by a robot that can be remotely operated and an operation terminal that can operate the robot via a network [0007]. FIG. 1 illustrates an embodiment of a service platform connecting a requester (business operator) and an operator (remote worker) of remote operation. The service platform includes a remote robot operation system and a remote operation matching system [0062]. The information processing system 1 includes a communication terminal 11-1 to a communication terminal 11-p, an operation terminal 12-1 to an operation terminal 12-q, a requester terminal 13-1 to a requester terminal 13-m, a robot 14-1 to a robot 14-n, and a management server 15 (Fig. 2 and [0070]).)
Hirai in view of Hicks teach acquire request information relating to a robot introduction input by the introduction-desired person via a first terminal display of the first terminal, acquire supply information relating to the robot, input by the supplier via a second terminal display of the second terminal, match the introduction-desired person with the supplier by calculating a matching score indicating a degree of matching between the request information and the supply information based on a number of conditions indicated in the request information that are satisfied by contents of the supply information, and transmit a matching result of the matching to at least one of the introduction-desired person or the supplier matched with the introduction- desired person, wherein the matching result includes at least one of contact information of the supplier, or contact information of the introduction-desired person. (See claim 1 response.)
As per claim 6 (New), Hirai in view of Hicks teach the matching method according to claim 1, Hirai does not explicitly teach, however, Hicks teaches wherein the contact information of the supplier or of the introduction-desired person includes at least one of a telephone number, a home page address, or a mail address for contacting the supplier or the introduction-desired person (Hicks e.g. The server searches the database for a matching supplier which has supplier information matching the customer information. The server then sends the customer the supplier contact information corresponding to the matching supplier (Abstract). At supplier contact information prompt 66, the supplier is prompted to enter or submit the information which the supplier wishes a customer to see when the customer and the supplier are linked together (i.e. “supplier contact information”). This supplier contact information can include, for example, the supplier's name and address, the supplier's telephone number, a digitized photograph, e-mail address, a hyperlink to the supplier's web site, the discounted products/services, length of the sale, instructions how to place a phone or credit card order, shipping instructions, a map instructing a customer how to physically reach the supplier, etc. (cols 6-7 lines 62-6).)
The Examiner submits that before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hirai’s matching process to include supplier contact information in the matching results as taught by Hicks in order to provide customers who seek a product or service at a specified discount in a desired geographic area with information relating to suppliers which are offering such a product or service at the specified discount in the desired geographic area (Hicks e.g. col. 2 lines 49-54).
As per claim 7 (New), Hirai in view of Hicks teach the matching method according to claim 1, Hirai teaches wherein the supply information further includes an operation amount of a service provided by the robot (Hirai e.g. The operator information is information regarding the operator or the operation terminal 12. The operator information is, for example, information including attribute information, authentication information, and operation environment information [0171]. The operation environment information is information regarding an environment in which the operator executes the remote operation [0180].), and the matching method further comprises: estimating at least one of a type or a quantity of robots to be introduced to the facility based on the request information (Hirai e.g. The requester information includes, for example, attribute information and work environment information [0161]. For example, the work environment information includes robot information and communication status information [0163]. The robot information is information regarding the robot 14 that executes work that is a target of the requested remote operation. The robot information includes, for example, one or more of identification information, a type, a specification, position information (for example, an installation position or the like), an operation status, an error occurrence status, and the like of the robot 14 [0164].), wherein the request information includes at least one of an area, a scale, and a conveyance amount of the facility, and the estimation of at least one of the type or the quantity of robots to be introduced to the facility based on the operation amount of the service provided by the robot and the at least one of the area, the scale, and the conveyance amount of the facility, (Hirai e.g. The requester information includes, for example, attribute information and work environment information [0161]. For example, the work environment information includes robot information and communication status information [0163]. The robot information is information regarding the robot 14 that executes work that is a target of the requested remote operation. The robot information includes, for example, one or more of identification information, a type, a specification, position information (for example, an installation position or the like), an operation status, an error occurrence status, and the like of the robot 14 [0164]. The work request information includes, for example, identification information of the robot 14 as the operation target, a work content and work time to be requested, a delivery date, a reward, conditions necessary for the operator, required quality of the work, and the like [0198]. The requested quality of the work is indicated by, for example, one or more of a speed of the work, accuracy of the work, and quality of a deliverable (for example, a product or the like) obtained by the work [0201]. The evaluation on the requested work includes, for example, an evaluation on a difficulty level, a work environment, and the like of the work [0460].)
As per claim 8 (New), Hirai in view of Hicks teach the matching method according to claim 1, Hirai teaches wherein the request information includes desired service information indicating services desired from the robot at the facility, and the supply information includes executable service information indicating the services the robot provides, wherein, in a case where the executable service information of the robot from an individual supplier from among the plurality of suppliers is unable to satisfy the desired service information, the information processing device selects two or more suppliers from among the plurality of suppliers for which the executable service information of the robot from each supplier of the two or more suppliers indicates that a combination of the robot from each supplier of the two or more suppliers is able to satisfy the desired service information (Hirai e.g. The management server 15 extracts candidates of the operator to which the work is to be requested, and generates an operator candidate list in which the operator candidates are listed. The management server 15 transmits the operator candidate list to the requester [0478]. The matching unit 211 may extract a predetermined number of operators from an operator having the highest matching degree or extract operators with a matching degree equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, to generate the operator candidate list in which the extracted operator candidates are listed [0494]. The operator candidate list includes, for example, information regarding ability and an operation environment of each operator candidate. Note that, for example, the operator candidate list may include a matching degree and an evaluation score of each operation candidate [0495]. The present technology can also be applied to, for example, a case where a plurality of operators performs work in cooperation [0619]. For example, the present technology can also be applied to a case where different operators execute remote operation of the robot 14 for each work process to execute one work. In this case, the matching unit 211 of the management server 15 executes the above-described matching processing for each work process, and selects an operator suitable for each work process [0620]. In this case, the matching unit 211 of the management server 15 executes the above-described matching processing, and selects a plurality of operators for one work [0621].)
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 Ayanna Minor whose telephone number is (571)272-3605. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5 pm.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights