DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II (claims 6 - 10) in the reply filed on 01/03/26 is acknowledged. Furthermore, the election/restriction with respect to Invention I (claims 1 - 5) has been withdrawn. Thus, claims 1 - 10 have been examined 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 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Re Claims 1 - 10: Alice 101
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2010 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1 - 10 is/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.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 6, is/are directed to a machine (i.e. system). NOTE: Although the preamble suggests the claimed invention is directed to a machine (i.e., system), the body of the claim is directed exclusively to software (i.e., “modular architecture with components” including “a data input module”, “data enrichment module”, “storage module”, “data presentation module”, “user interface module”) without any hardware implementation. Software per se is not one of the enumerated categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention involves receiving options trading data comprising parameters including strike price, expiration date, and trade volume; enhancing the received data with reference data and derived metrics, including underlying stock attributes and aggregated trade volumes; storing the enriched data in a multidimensional structure;
generating an interactive tabular view of the enriched data; and enabling a user to perform interactive data exploration operations, including but not limited to sorting, filtering, grouping, and drilling down into specific trades, facilitates the identification of noteworthy options activity, including multi-leg spreads and roll transactions, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (processing and analyzing options trading data); commercial or legal interactions (processing and analyzing options trading data); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (receive, enhance, store, generate, enable a user to perform, facilitates).
The mere nominal recitation of a “system” comprising “modular architecture with components” including “a data input module”, “data enrichment module”, “storage module”, “data presentation module”, “user interface module” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to receiving options trading data comprising parameters including strike price, expiration date, and trade volume; enhancing the received data with reference data and derived metrics, including underlying stock attributes and aggregated trade volumes; storing the enriched data in a multidimensional structure; generating an interactive tabular view of the enriched data; and enabling a user to perform interactive data exploration operations, including but not limited to sorting, filtering, grouping, and drilling down into specific trades, facilitates the identification of noteworthy options activity, including multi-leg spreads and roll transactions.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “system” comprising “modular architecture with components” including “a data input module”, “data enrichment module”, “storage module”, “data presentation module”, “user interface module”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for a “system”, the claim encompasses the user manually receiving options trading data comprising parameters including strike price, expiration date, and trade volume; enhancing the received data with reference data and derived metrics, including underlying stock attributes and aggregated trade volumes; storing the enriched data in a multidimensional structure; generating an interactive tabular view of the enriched data; and enabling a user to perform interactive data exploration operations, including but not limited to sorting, filtering, grouping, and drilling down into specific trades, facilitates the identification of noteworthy options activity, including multi-leg spreads and roll transactions. NOTE: (a) The claim is exclusively from the perspective of a “system”.
The mere nominal recitation of a “system” comprising “modular architecture with components” including “a data input module”, “data enrichment module”, “storage module”, “data presentation module”, “user interface module” does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This/these limitation(s) recite a mental process. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of a “system” comprising “modular architecture with components” including “a data input module”, “data enrichment module”, “storage module”, “data presentation module”, “user interface module” performing the positively recited steps or acts. The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data processing (e.g., “enhance”, “generate”, “enable a user to perform”, “facilitates”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (c) data storage (e.g., “store”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering options trading data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “system” that performs the step(s) is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the step(s). At best the “system” is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 12/30/24 does not provide any indication that a “system” comprising “modular architecture with components” including “a data input module”, “data enrichment module”, “storage module”, “data presentation module”, “user interface module” is anything other than a generic off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Khuntia, US Pub. No. 2015/0332396 and Puma, US Pub. No. 2025/0069140 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data processing (e.g., “enhance”, “generate”, “enable a user to perform”, “facilitates”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (c) data storage (e.g., “store”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data processing (e.g., “enhance”, “generate”, “enable a user to perform”, “facilitates”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (c) data storage (e.g., “store”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Versata Dev. Group, OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim(s), and thus the claim(s) are ineligible.
Dependent claims 7 - 10 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. NOTE: Under PRONG 2 and 2(B), dependent claims 7 - 9 recite an additional task or function (i.e., data display (e.g., “displaying”, “automatically overlaying”, etc. step(s) as claimed)).
SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed Cir. 2018) (displaying and disseminating financial information) and Intellectual Ventures 1 LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (advanced internet interface providing user display access of customized web pages) indicate displaying information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here).
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent method claim 1 is/are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the system claims. The components described in independent method claim 1, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the process (method) recited in the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 - 5 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. NOTE: Under PRONG 2 and 2(B), dependent claims 2 - 4 recite an additional task or function (i.e., data display (e.g., “displaying”, “automatically overlaying”, etc. step(s) as claimed)).
SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed Cir. 2018) (displaying and disseminating financial information) and Intellectual Ventures 1 LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (advanced internet interface providing user display access of customized web pages) indicate displaying information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here).
Re Claim 6 (claims 7 - 10 based on their dependency): Software Per Se
Claim 6 recites a “system” comprising “modular architecture with components” including “a data input module”, “data enrichment module”, “storage module”, “data presentation module”, “user interface module”.
(a)A “system”, “modular architecture with components” and “module” are not clearly defined in applicant’s specification as filed 12/30/24.
(b)In applicant’s specification as filed 12/30/24, the “system”, “modular architecture with components” and “module” could potentially be only software and are not defined as specifically including hardware.
(c)Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim language covers an embodiment wherein the system includes does not include hardware but only software. See also, MPEP § 2111 Broadest Reasonable Interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 and 9 (claims 7 - 10 based on their dependency) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re Claim 6 (claims 7 - 10 based on their dependency): Claim 6 recites, “wherein the system facilitates the identification of noteworthy options activity, including multi-leg spreads and roll transactions.”
The term “noteworthy” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “noteworthy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Re Claim 9: Claim 9 recites, “automatically overlaying options trading activity on a stock price chart, displayed alongside the interactive tabular view in a vertical or horizontal layout, wherein selected strike prices and/or expiration dates are rendered as horizontal lines, such that the tabular view and the annotated stock price chart are concurrently accessible to the user.”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for and/or inconsistent terminology with respect to “the tabular view” in the claim. NOTE: Does applicant intend – the interactive tabular view -- ?
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the annotated stock price chart” in the claim.
NOTE: The particular language used is not required, but intended as an aide to the applicant in overcoming one or more of the objections and/ or rejections noted in this office action. Alternative language may be proposed. Please indicate where support may be found in the specification for any amendments made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khuntia, US Pub. No. 2015/0332396 in view of Puma, US Pub. No. 2025/0069140.
Re Claim 1: Khuntia discloses a method for processing and analyzing options trading data, comprising:
receiving options trading data comprising parameters including strike price, expiration date, and trade volume (Khuntia, abstract, [0004] [0010] [0019]);
enriching the received data with reference data and derived metrics, including underlying stock attributes and aggregated trade volumes (Khuntia, abstract, [0004] [0010]);
generating a configurable interactive tabular view of the enriched data using the multidimensional structure (Khuntia, abstract, [0004] [0005] [0008] [0010] [0021] [0022] [0032] [0045]); and
enabling a user to perform interactive data exploration operations, including but not limited to sorting, filtering, grouping, and drilling down into specific trades (Khuntia, abstract, [0004] [0005] [0007] [0008] [0009] [0010] [0021] [0022] [0028] [0032] [0045] [0050]),
wherein the method facilitates the identification noteworthy and actionable options activity, including multi-leg spread trades and roll transactions (Khuntia, abstract, [0004] [0005] [0008] [0010] [0021] [0022] [0032] [0045] [0046]).
Khuntia fails to explicitly disclose:
storing the enriched data in a multidimensional structure;
Puma discloses:
storing the enriched data in a multidimensional structure (Puma, Figs. 3, 4, [0016] [0053] [0054]);
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Khuntia and Puma are in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as they relate to processing and analyzing options trading data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Khuntia by adopting the teachings of Puma to provide storing the enriched data in a multidimensional structure.
One would have been motivated to improve information accuracy and relevance; and improve the speed of recovery.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claim 6: Khuntia discloses system for processing and analyzing options trading data, comprising:
a modular architecture with components including (Khuntia, abstract, [0019] [0054] [0055] [0058]):
a data input module configured to receive options trading data comprising parameters including strike price, expiration date, and trade volume (Khuntia, abstract, [0004] [0010] [0019]);
a data enrichment module configured to enhance the received data with reference data and derived metrics, including underlying stock attributes and aggregated trade volumes (Khuntia, abstract, [0004] [0010]);
a data presentation module configured to generate an interactive tabular view of the enriched data (Khuntia, abstract, [0004] [0005] [0008] [0010] [0021] [0022] [0032] [0045]); and
a user interface module configured to enable a user to perform interactive data exploration operations, including but not limited to sorting, filtering, grouping, and drilling down into specific trades (Khuntia, abstract, [0004] [0005] [0007] [0008] [0009] [0010] [0021] [0022] [0028] [0032] [0045] [0050]),
wherein the system facilitates the identification of noteworthy options activity, including multi-leg spreads and roll transactions (Khuntia, abstract, [0004] [0005] [0008] [0010] [0021] [0022] [0032] [0045] [0046]).
Khuntia fails to explicitly disclose:
a storage module configured to store the enriched data in a multidimensional structure;
Puma discloses:
a storage module configured to store the enriched data in a multidimensional structure (Puma, Figs. 3, 4, [0016] [0053] [0054]);
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Khuntia and Puma are in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as they relate to processing and analyzing options trading data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Khuntia by adopting the teachings of Puma to provide a storage module configured to store the enriched data in a multidimensional structure.
One would have been motivated to improve information accuracy and relevance; and improve the speed of recovery.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claims 2 and 7: Khuntia in view of Puma discloses the claimed invention supra and Khuntia further discloses
displaying dual open interest columns in the interactive tabular view, where one column represents open interest as of the time of the trade and another column represents subsequent-day open interest (Khuntia, abstract, [0004] [0005] [0008] [0010] [0021] [0022] [0032] [0045]).
Re Claims 3 and 8: Khuntia in view of Puma discloses the claimed invention supra and Khuntia further discloses
displaying trade directional interpretations at multiple levels of granularity, including individual trade interpretations and aggregated trade interpretations, within the interactive tabular view (Khuntia, abstract, [0004] [0005] [0008] [0010] [0021] [0022] [0032] [0045]).
Re Claims 4 and 9: Khuntia in view of Puma discloses the claimed invention supra and Khuntia further discloses
automatically overlaying options trading activity on a stock price chart, displayed alongside the interactive tabular view in a vertical or horizontal layout, wherein selected strike prices and/or expiration dates are rendered as horizontal lines, such that the tabular view and the annotated stock price chart are concurrently accessible to the user (Khuntia, abstract, [0004] [0005] [0008] [0010] [0021] [0022] [0032] [0045]).
Re Claims 5 and 10: Khuntia in view of Puma discloses the claimed invention supra and Khuntia further discloses
delivering the interactive tabular view and associated analysis via one or more delivery mechanisms including but not limited to email attachment, FTP transfer, web platform download, in-browser application, desktop client, mobile application, or other electronic communication methods (Khuntia, abstract, [0004] [0005] [0008] [0010] [0021] [0022] [0032] [0045]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and relates to options flow analysis.
US Pub. No. 2010/0293110
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA C HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8-5, 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, Christine Tran can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
SARA CHANDLER HAMILTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/SARA C HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695