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 action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 08 May 2026.
Claim(s) 1-20, 22, 31 and 38 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 41-43 are newly added.
Claim(s) 21, 23-30, 32-37 and 39-43 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejection
The submitted amendments cause this case to have differing temporal aspects than the parent patents thus rendering the double patenting rejections moot.
§101 Rejections
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 of the remarks dated 08 May 2026 that the specification identifies a specific technical problem with conventional software application requiring the user to log in and that the specification describes a technical solution to this problem by presenting the expiration status of a virtual document from an unauthenticated state by reciting “prior to authentication of the user” as amended Claim 21 recites thus reciting a specific manner of displaying document status information that provides a technical improvement over the prior systems that required login before any information could be displayed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that “prior to authentication of the user” is not precisely the same as being in an unauthenticated state or the system not being logged in. Under the claims’ BRI this step merely must be performed prior to an authentication. For Example, this may be performed after a user has been authenticated prior but is currently unauthenticated, is logged in but not authenticated under another different metric, or may be authenticated with one entity but not necessarily another (i.e. prior to authentication). Ergo, the claims do not recite being in an unauthenticated state or that the user is not logged in. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that their claims are eligible for reasons similar to those given in Example 47. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Example 47 references the case of SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc. (hereinafter SRI). Therefore for the sake of compact prosecution Examiner will address both together. In SRI, the problem being solved was identified as follows:
“While the interconnectivity of computer networks facilitates access for authorized users, it also increases a network's susceptibility to attacks from hackers, malware, and other security threats. Some of these security threats can only be detected with information from multiple sources. For instance, a hacker may try logging in to several computers or monitors in a network. The number of login attempts for each computer may be below the threshold to trigger an alert, making it difficult to detect such an attack by looking at only a single monitor location in the network.”
The focus of claims were further found to be the following:
“The "focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities"—that is, providing a network defense system that monitors network traffic in real-time to automatically detect large-scale attacks”. The specification bolstered the court’s conclusion that the claims were directed to a technological solution to a technical problem. “The specification explains that, while computer networks "offer users ease and efficiency in exchanging information," '615 patent col. 1 ll.28-29, "the very interoperability and sophisticated integration of technology that make networks such valuable assets also make them vulnerable to attack, and make dependence on networks a potential liability." Id. at col. 1 ll. 36-39. The specification further teaches that, in conventional networks, seemingly localized triggering events can have globally disastrous effects on widely distributed systems—like the 1980 ARPAnet collapse and the1990 AT&T collapse. See id. at col. 1 ll. 43-47. The specification explains that the claimed invention is directed to solving these weaknesses in conventional networks and provides "a framework for the recognition of more global threats to interdomain connectivity, including coordinated attempts to infiltrate or destroy connectivity across an entire network enterprise."
Similarly, in Example 47 the problem being solved was identified in the following:
“The consideration of whether the claim as a whole includes an improvement to a computer or to a technological field requires an evaluation of the specification and the claim to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). According to the background section, existing systems use various detection techniques for detecting potentially malicious network packets and can alert a network administrator to potential problems. The disclosed system detects network intrusions and takes real-time remedial actions, including dropping suspicious packets and blocking traffic from suspicious source addresses. The background section further explains that the disclosed system enhances security by acting in real time to proactively prevent network intrusions.
The claimed invention reflects this improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection. Steps (d)-(f) provide for improved network security using the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive measures to remediate the danger by detecting the source address associated with the potentially malicious packets. Specifically, the claim reflects the improvement in step (d), dropping potentially malicious packets in step (e), and blocking future traffic from the source address in step (f). These steps reflect the improvement 13 described in the background. Thus, the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.”
Unlike in SRI and Example 47, applicant’s specification is not focused on an improvement in computer capabilities, but rather is focused on implementation of a business practice (i.e. insurance, See at least paragraphs [0003]-[0004] of the specification) using generic computer components. The case of SRI and Example 47 are not analogous to the instant application.
Applicant argues that their claims are eligible for reasons similar to those given in Example 37. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Example 37, The claim as a whole integrated the mental process into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recited a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provided a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. Applicant’s invention is not providing a specific improvement resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. Example 37 is not analogous to the instant invention.
Applicant argues that Claims 25, 28, 32, 35 and 40 recite additional technical features and that these elements are not taught by the prior art thus showing that the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “The analysis under Step 2A Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon (including products of nature). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I supra, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h).” See MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) (emphasis added). Examiner notes that the section(s) of the claim(s) which applicant cites were and/or are elements which cause the claim to recite an abstract idea. As cited, additional elements which could cause integration into a practical application must be those recited beyond the judicial exception (emphasis added). The elements which recite the judicial exception cannot also serve to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, with regards to teachings by the art Examiner notes the following: “Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination.” See MPEP § 2106.05(I). Although the second step in the Alice/Mayo framework is termed a search for an “inventive concept,” the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a search for an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. Furthermore, tests for whether an element is conventional under Step 2B only applies to the additional elements recited and not to the abstract idea present within the claims. Improvement of technology by virtue of novelty or non-obviousness is not a test of eligibility.
Applicant argues that Claim 21 recites an ordered combination of features that, taken together is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for additional elements to provide more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional, the additional elements must in combination provide additional functionality that is not present when considering the elements individually. Examiner notes that the additional elements do not in combination provide for additional functionality.
Applicant argues that new Claims 41-43 are directed to eligible subject matter for the additional features that each recites. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner incorporates by reference the instant 101 rejection which explains in detail why each of Claims 41-43 do not confer eligibility to the claims.
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 21, 23-30, 32-37 and 39-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a computing system, computer implemented method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for a home screen agent and insurance card widget. These are a machine, process, and article of manufacture which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 21, 30 and 37:
Claims 21, 30 and 37:
“determining that the expiration date is prior to a current date;”
“presenting,…, a user interface including a virtual representation of the document and an indication that the document is expired;”
“responsive to an authentication of the user via the credentials, receiving,… , an updated expiration date of the document based at least in part on the contract;”
“presenting, prior to authentication of the user, …, an updated user interface including an updated virtual representation of the document with an indication of the updated expiration date.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors;”, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform acts comprising:”, “an electronic device”, “a display”, “a server”, or “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including computer- readable instructions to be executed by one or more processors of a system for updating a virtual representation of an expired document to reflect an updated expiration date, the instructions when executed causing the one or more processors to:” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Insurance. Insurance is described when updating insurance card information. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following (or similar) additional elements:
Claims 21, 30 and 37:
“one or more processors; and”
“one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform acts comprising:”
“storing, on an electronic device, information associated with a contract between a user and a service provider, wherein the information includes an expiration date of a document associated with the contract;”
“…via a home screen presented by a display associated with the electronic device…”
“receiving, via user input to the user interface, credentials required to log into a server of the service provider;”
“storing, on the electronic device, the updated expiration date; and”
“…from the server…”
“…via the display…”
Claim 37:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including computer- readable instructions to be executed by one or more processors of a system for updating a virtual representation of an expired document to reflect an updated expiration date, the instructions when executed causing the one or more processors to:”
The computer components (one or more processors, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, electronic device, home screen, display and server) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic processors, generic storage, a generic device, a generic home screen, a generics display and a generic server) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The storing and receiving step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generally storing and generally receiving) such that they amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(II):
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
The claim elements which recite additional elements are:
Claims 21, 30 and 37:
“one or more processors; and”
“one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform acts comprising:”
“storing, on an electronic device, information associated with a contract between a user and a service provider, wherein the information includes an expiration date of a document associated with the contract;”
“…via a home screen presented by a display associated with the electronic device…”
“receiving, via user input to the user interface, credentials required to log into a server of the service provider;”
“storing, on the electronic device, the updated expiration date; and”
“…from the server…”
“…via the display…”
Claim 37:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including computer- readable instructions to be executed by one or more processors of a system for updating a virtual representation of an expired document to reflect an updated expiration date, the instructions when executed causing the one or more processors to:”
Examiner incorporates the corresponding rationale provided in Step 2A Prong Two herein by carrying over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) – (c), (e), (f) and (h).
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner:
(for storing various data) Storing and retrieving information in memory, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
(for receiving various data) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 23-29, 32-36 and 39-40 recite limitations that are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Claim 41 further recites “…wherein the electronic device comprises a smart watch, and wherein the authentication of the user comprises receiving, by the smart watch, an authentication token from a mobile device in wireless communication with the smart watch.” The computer components (smart watch, mobile device, and wireless communication) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic smart watch, generic mobile device, and generic wireless communication) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).) The receiving step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generally receiving) such that they amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
Claim 42 further recites “wherein the smart watch and the mobile device are configured to: remain authenticated during activity of a software application, and log out the user in response to detecting an absence of activity of the software application for a predetermined time period.” The use of activity-based account access is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technology) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
Claim 43 further recites “wherein the mobile device pushes a wireless notification to the smart watch indicating that the document is expired.” The pushing step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generally pushing) such that they amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(II):
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
The claim elements which recite additional elements are:
Claim 41:
“wherein the electronic device comprises a smart watch, and wherein the authentication of the user comprises receiving, by the smart watch, an authentication token from a mobile device in wireless communication with the smart watch.”
Claim 42:
“wherein the smart watch and the mobile device are configured to: remain authenticated during activity of a software application, and log out the user in response to detecting an absence of activity of the software application for a predetermined time period.”
Claim 43:
“wherein the mobile device pushes a wireless notification to the smart watch indicating that the document is expired.”
Examiner incorporates the corresponding rationale provided in Step 2A Prong Two herein by carrying over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) – (c), (e), (f) and (h).
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner:
(for pushing various data) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The claims are not patent eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner find that the claims would not have been obvious over a combination of the cited prior art. What follows is a discussion of the closest prior art of reference.
U.S. Patent No. 9,996,878 by inventor Michael Scott Fox filed on March 11, 2015 teaches displaying an electronic insurance card widget and an electronic insurance card including an agent name and phone number in [Col 5, Ln 26-41], "FIG. 1B illustrates a graphical user interface 102B displayed on the in-vehicle display 102A, which functions as a home screen. The graphical user interface 102B includes three portions: top, body, and bottom. The top portion contains an icon named "TRAFFIC & WEATHER" appearing graphically as a cloud under which is a bolt of lightning. Selection of the "TRAFFIC & WEATHER" icon causes the system 100 to navigate the insured 106 to the traffic monitor module 118 and the weather monitor module 116. Another icon named "INSURANCE ID CARD" appears as a stylized business card, the invocation of which causes the system 100 to navigate the insured 106 to the insurance card module 112"; AND, in [Col 9, Ln 19-23], “When the insured 106 invokes the insurance card module 112 on the in- vehicle display 102A, the graphical user interface 300 appears. See FIG. 3. At the top of the graphical user interface 300 is the title of the graphical user interface 300, namely, “Insurance Card"; AND, in Figure 3.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0011304 by inventor Marcel MWA van Os filed on July 9, 2008 teaches displaying a software widget including a name and an image of an insurance agent of a user on a screen of the display in Par [0043], "FIG. 5A is a block diagram of an example mobile device 100 including a page 502 associated with a newly created icon 405 depicted in FIG. 4. In some implementations, selecting the icon 405 can cause the contact page 502 to be displayed on the mobile device 100. The contact page 502 can include an image 504 of a person, place, or thing representing the contact. The contact page 502 can include a name 506 of the contact. The contact page 502 can include other information associated with the contact, such as any combination of one or more phone numbers 508, one or more email addresses 510, one or more website (e.g., Internet homepage) addresses 514, or one or more concrete (e.g., mailing) addresses 516. The name and other information associated with the contact page 502 can be edited by the user, as described with respect to FIG. 3". Marcel Figure 4 shows anicon (i.e., widget) having name and image, and Figure 5 shows the phone number, mailing address, and email address.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0106725 by inventor Paul Bernell Finley, Jr filed on November 12, 2004, is analogous art that teaches comparing the associated effective end date … with a current date, generating a first indicia if the associated effective end date occurred before the current date, and displaying the first indicia on the first screen overlaid on a software widget in Par [0040], “As described above and further illustrated by FIG. 2B, several of the license status symbols are represented utilizing a stoplight icon with positional, color-coded license status, where red indicates that the license has expired and needs to be renewed, yellow (or amber) indicates that the license is about to expire and should be renewed within the near future, and green indicates that the license is still valid and is not close to expiring"; AND, in Figure 3 showing different stoplight icons for different license statuses.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0018889 by inventor James C. Petersen field on June 12, 2008 teaches in Par [0120], "A certificate of insurance is a special case document that can be uploaded by any company and assigned an expiration date by the company. The certificate of insurance is stored at the company or participant level and is not necessarily specific to a schedule of values or applications for payment. In an embodiment, thirty days prior to the expiration date of the certificate of insurance, the company that uploaded the certificate of insurance will receive an electronic notification, such as a pop-up alert at a corresponding web client upon the creation of an application for payment, providing notice of the pending expiration. Likewise, participants contracting with a company having a certificate of insurance within (or beyond) the 30 day period prior to expiration will receive an electronic notification, such as a pop-up alert, on corresponding applications for payment, notifying them that the submitting company's certification of insurance is due to expire, or has expired". Peterson does not specifically teach the expiration date of the insurance document is stored on the client/mobile device nor does it periodically compare the expiration date of the document (e.g., in the "background") without the user initiating an application for payment that triggers the expiration date comparison.
WIPO Application Publication No. 2012/090146 A2 by inventor Juerg Ralph Ernst filed on December 14, 2011 discloses, "The invention relates to a computer-assisted method for activating an insurance certificate for vehicles on a homepage, wherein the policy holder himself is authorized to access a clearing system of insurances to have an electronic insurance certificate issued and to electronically forward it directly to the vehicle licensing authority, whereupon the policy holder is automatically invited to collect the number plates and the vehicle registration document from the vehicle licensing authority. The method according to the invention can also be used to take out a policy of other insurances, including electronic payment and electronic issuance of the policy and electronically automated claim settlement" (Abstract).
Non-Patent Literature entitled Expired Indicia on Diplomatic Driving License dated March 12, 2002 shows an indicia overlaid on a card showing the card has expired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jorgensen (US 2010/0299156 A1) discloses managing expiration date data.
Caldwell (US 9,805,359 B2) discloses third party authenticating a user prior to permitting the user to access financial data.
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 ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. 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.
/ADAM HILMANTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights