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 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the language reads on a transitory signal.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of monitoring and messaging the movements of a mobile device without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons that follow. Statutory Classes The claims are directed to an apparatus a statutory class on invention. Judicial Exception
The claims recite the abstract idea of evaluating the use of an electronic device. The steps of the abstract idea include the nonbolded steps as follows;
a housing;
a display device;
at least one sensor;
a memory device; and
at least one processor that is configured to execute self protection operations on the consumer electronics device,
the self protection operations comprising:
gathering first data comprising sensor data generated via the at least one sensor of the consumer electronics device;
processing at least a first portion of the sensor data indicative of an acceleration of the consumer electronics device to determine that the acceleration of the consumer electronics device indicates a drop;
processing at least the first portion of the sensor data to determine a geometric mean of rotation based at least in part on the first portion of the sensor data;
determine that the geometric mean of rotation satisfies an impact threshold value; and
in response to the determination that the geometric mean of rotation satisfies the impact threshold value:
(i.) store first information in the memory device associated with the drop, and
(ii.) trigger rendering of a warning on the display device associated with the drop of the consumer electronics device and configured to reduce the likelihood of future drops and/or protect the consumer electronics device in the event of the future drops.
Regarding claims 21-40 each are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. As such, the analysis proceeds to Step 2. The 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”) sets forth a revised Step 2A analysis which includes a two-prong inquiry.
Eligibility Analysis, Step 2A Prong One
Prong one consists of determining if the claims recite a judicial exception, which includes abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomenon. Groupings of abstract ideas may include mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity. Here, representative independent claim 1 recites limitations relating to periodic savings and usage of funds and more specifically:
The unbolded steps above describe a fundamental economic practice, commercial interactions, and managing interactions between people, and therefore a certain method of organizing human activity. Further, the limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by a human analog but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the recitation of the electronic device and the components therein, practically being performed by a human analog. “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. As such, the claims recite an abstract idea under prong one. The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Eligibility Analysis, Step 2A Prong Two
Prong two consists of determining whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements:
Receiving device, querying module, and control processing module of a processing server, which performs the steps relating to receiving the savings request; storing the transaction controls; increasing saved amounts; and preventing usage of the saved amounts. The computer is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of sending, receiving, and processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
account database, which stores the account profile and transaction controls. The storage medium is also recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic medium to perform the generic computer function of storing data.
The additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. They do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claims are directed to the abstract idea. The analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Eligibility Analysis, Step 2B
Step 2B consists of determining whether the claim provides an inventive concept by considering whether the additional elements go beyond what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106; see also USPTO: July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility):
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”);
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
In the case of the instant claims, the generic application of the consumer electronic device similarly does not make the invention patent-eligible. Note that the disclosure recite general purpose consumer devices which are suitable to perform the claimed method (see eg. para. 0004). Moreover, the specification does not contribute any technically-specific computer algorithm or code, but rather merely states that the claimed steps may be performed by the generic modules with the expectation that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of implementation without further instruction. The use of computing devices in this manner is merely what computers do, ie. performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, and automating mental tasks, and does not change the analysis. Whilst the implementation of such a solution may include the use of generic technical features, these merely serve their well-understood functions as would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art in the technical field under consideration. As such, the claims' invocation of the computer merely amounts to the limiting of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Here, the involvement of the generic computer products does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-eligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic consumer device functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components in this manner does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, as discussed above. The same analysis applies here in Step 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.
Independent claim 38 recites substantially similar limitations as independent claim 21 and is rejected accordingly. Dependent claims 21-24 and 39-40 further express the abstract idea and do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are for the same reason as the claim 21.
As to claim 25 and its gyroscope and claim and it 26 touchscreen and claim 27 and it display device , and claims 28 / 29monitoring software applications, under Step 2B of the Eligibility Guidance, the issue is whether there is an inventive concept. Looking again at the abstract idea and additional elements beyond the abstract idea above, in making this Step 2B determination, the issue is whether there are specific limitations or elements recited in the claim “that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality this part of the analysis. Further the issue if whether “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination” indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” As the courts have stated, one way to determine if a claim is directed to an abstract idea is to "ask whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in the computer capabilities ... or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. In rejecting the claims under § 101, the examiner applied the same analysis used in the context of rejecting claims under § 112(a). That is, the examiner must make a factual determination that the element represented well-understood, routine, conventional activity that it need not be described in detail in the patent specification. Finally, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the exception as the steps of receiving the sensor information has been shown to be widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant field.
Here each of the operations performed by the additional components are in fact routine and conventional – see US Patent 10395221, p [0014] In some examples, sensor data from built-in or onboard sensors, such as from one or more accelerometers, gyroscopes or other sensors incorporated into the electronic device may provide acceleration and orientation information before, during and following a fall of the electronic device. For instance, the sensors may be used to determine when the electronic device is in freefall and the occurrence of other nonstandard motion or acceleration conditions indicating that the device is falling. The collected sensor information may be used to determine whether the electronic device experienced a fall event, the duration of the fall event, the height of the fall event and/or an orientation of the electronic device during the fall event, such as at a time of impact with a surface. The fall event information may be stored on the portable electronic device as care information and/or sent to another computing device. P [0021] (21) As used herein, device care that is sufficient to receive a reward may include device care that meets one or more minimum threshold requirements for one or more respective monitored device care metrics. Examples of device care metrics that may be monitored include physical care metrics, such as fall event information and moisture event information, and system care metrics, such as operating system state information, application state information, security information and/or device state information. Each of these device care metrics may have threshold established for the user to obtain a reward for device care. For example, with respect to the fall event metric, the threshold might be that no falls over a certain height have occurred in the past month, or other specified time period. Similarly, for the moisture event metric, a threshold may be that no submersion events or other excessive moisture events have occurred over the time period. Further, with respect to the system event metrics, such as an operating system event metric, an application event metric, etc., a threshold may be that the user complies with a message to perform an action, such as updating a program, removing an application, charging a battery and so forth within a specified amount of time or before receiving a specified number of messages, or the like. Additionally, in some cases, only one or several of these device care metrics might be monitored to determine whether the level of device care is sufficient to receive a reward.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21,22,28-29,35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1029(a)(1) as being anticipated by Price US Patent 10395221.
Claim 21
Price teaches the following:
a housing;
a display device;
at least one sensor;
a memory device; and
at least one processor that is configured to execute self protection operations on the consumer electronics device, the self protection operations comprising: Fig. 2 P[0032]
gathering first data comprising sensor data generated via the at least one sensor of the consumer electronics device; p[0014][0034]
processing at least a first portion of the sensor data indicative of an acceleration of the consumer electronics device to determine that the acceleration of the consumer electronics device indicates a drop; p[0014]
processing at least the first portion of the sensor data to determine a geometric mean of rotation based at least in part on the first portion of the sensor data;
determine that the geometric mean of rotation satisfies an impact threshold value; p[0097] and
in response to the determination that the geometric mean of rotation satisfies the impact threshold value:
(i.) store first information in the memory device associated with the drop, p[0059] and
(ii.) trigger rendering of a warning on the display device associated with the drop of the consumer electronics device and configured to reduce the likelihood of future drops and/or protect the consumer electronics device in the event of the future drops. Fig 5 p[0067]
22. (New) The consumer electronics device of claim 21, wherein the at least one sensor comprises a tri-axial accelerometer, and wherein the self protection operations further comprise:
gathering second data from the tri-axial accelerometer;
parsing the second data to determine whether the second data exceeds a first threshold and subsequently falls below a second threshold within a first time period; and
responsive thereto, saving second information indicating that the consumer electronics device has experienced a drop event, wherein the second information indicates that the drop event corresponds to the consumer electronics device having been dropped. P[0014][0024] p[0038]
28. (New) The consumer electronics device of claim 21, wherein the self protection operations further comprise:
gathering second data from the consumer electronics device, wherein the second data indicates a lack of interaction by a user of the consumer electronics device with a second software application associated with the consumer electronics device; and
parsing the second data to determine whether the second data indicates or is associated with a risk and, responsive thereto, (1) save second information indicating that the consumer electronics device has been exposed to the risk and (2) initiate a display of a notification on the display device. Figure 5.
29. (New) The consumer electronics device of claim 21, wherein the self protection operations further comprise executing an application to continually gather the first data in the background.
35. (New) The consumer electronics device of claim 21, wherein the self protection operations further comprise:
processing at least the first portion of the sensor data to determine an orientation based at least in part on the first portion of the sensor data;
determining that the orientation satisfies the impact threshold value; and
initiating a display of a notification on the display device, wherein the first information is saved and the notification is displayed in response to determining that the orientation satisfies the impact threshold value. P[0037]
36. (New) The consumer electronics device of claim 21, wherein the geometric mean of rotation is a speed of rotation.
37. (New) The consumer electronics device of claim 21, wherein the self protection operations further comprise backing up the consumer electronics device.
38-40 are the computer readable medium equivalents of the above.
Claim(s) 23-27 , 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price Patent US Patent 10395221
The reference fails to teach the following:
23. (New) The consumer electronics device of claim 22, wherein the self protection operations further comprise:
determining that the second data indicates a drop event when the second data falls below a third threshold that is lower than the second threshold or when the second data increases before exceeding the first threshold,
wherein the second information indicates that the drop event corresponds to the consumer electronics device having been thrown.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have modified the above reference to set thresholds bases on acceleration as whether the data indicates that an acceleration of the consumer electronics device exceeded the upper threshold value and subsequently fell below the lower threshold value within the time interval or whether the data indicates that the acceleration of the consumer electronics device. Where there is a reason to modify or combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, the claims may be rejected as prima facie obvious provided there is also a reasonable expectation of success. The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to "the likelihood of success" in modifying prior art disclosures to meet the limitations of the claimed invention. See Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375, 2023 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2023) and Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367, 119 USPQ2d 1171, 1176 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
24. (New) The consumer electronics device of claim 22, wherein the self protection operations further comprise:
receiving third data from a second sensor of the consumer electronics device;
determining whether the third data exceeds a third threshold; and
in response to the third data exceeding the third threshold, saving third information indicating that the consumer electronics device impacted a hard surface after being dropped.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have modified the above reference to set thresholds based on height as the data indicates that an fall of the consumer electronics device exceeded the upper threshold value and subsequently fell below the lower threshold value within the time interval or it indicates that the impact force on the consumer electronics device hitting the floor. The reason is as where there is a reason to modify or combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, the claims may be rejected as prima facie obvious provided there is also a reasonable expectation of success. The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to "the likelihood of success" in modifying prior art disclosures to meet the limitations of the claimed invention. See Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375, 2023 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2023) and Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367, 119 USPQ2d 1171, 1176 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
25. (New) The consumer electronics device of claim 24, wherein the second sensor is a gyroscope. p[0097] , as the gyroscope measures angular velocity. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have modified the above reference to set thresholds based on angular velocity. Whether the data indicates that the angular velocity of the consumer electronics device exceeded the upper threshold value and subsequently fell below the lower threshold value indicates the force that the consumer electronics is exposed to. The reason is as where there is a reason to modify or combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, the claims may be rejected as prima facie obvious provided there is also a reasonable expectation of success. The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to "the likelihood of success" in modifying prior art disclosures to meet the limitations of the claimed invention. See Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375, 2023 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2023) and Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367, 119 USPQ2d 1171, 1176 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
26. (New) The consumer electronics device of claim 21, wherein the self protection operations further comprise:
initiating a display of a notification on the display device that includes a warning associated with the drop of the consumer electronics device; and
gathering second data from a touchscreen of the consumer electronics device, wherein the warning is based at least in part on the second data. Fig. 5
27. (New) The consumer electronics device of claim 21, wherein the self protection operations further comprise:
initiating a display of a notification on the display device, wherein the notification includes a warning associated with the drop of the consumer electronics device; and
monitoring at least one software application executed via the consumer electronics device to detect at least second data comprising Internet browsing activity, email activity, or user interaction associated with the consumer electronics device via the at least one software application executed via the consumer electronics device, wherein the warning is based at least in part on the second data. Figure 5.
30. (New) The consumer electronics device of claim 21, wherein the self protection operations further comprise processing the at least the first portion of the sensor data
indicative of the acceleration of the consumer electronics device to determine that the acceleration of the consumer electronics device indicates the drop by: processing the first portion of the sensor data to detect that that the first portion of the sensor data, within a first time period initially falls below a lower threshold value, subsequently exceeds an upper threshold value without exceeding an intermediate threshold value below the upper threshold value, and subsequently falls below the lower threshold value.
As this is one approach to using sensor data and as the sensor are taught there is a reason to modify the prior art to achieve the claimed invention. Claims may be rejected as prima facie obvious provided there is also a reasonable expectation of success. The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to "the likelihood of success" in modifying prior art disclosures to meet the limitations of the claimed invention. See Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375, 2023 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2023) and Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367, 119 USPQ2d 1171, 1176 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
31. (New) The consumer electronics device of claim 30, wherein the self protection operations further comprise:
processing a second portion of the sensor data to detect that the second portion of the sensor data initially falls below a threshold value, and subsequently exceeds the intermediate threshold value that is below the upper threshold value; and
in response to detecting that the second portion of the sensor data initially falls below the threshold value and subsequent exceeds the intermediate threshold value, ignoring the second portion of the sensor data as harmless.
As this is one approach to using accelerometer data and as the accelerometer is taught in the prior at for the same purpose as the claimed invention, there is a reason to modify the prior art to achieve the claimed invention. Claims may be rejected as prima facie obvious provided there is also a reasonable expectation of success. The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to "the likelihood of success" in modifying prior art disclosures to meet the limitations of the claimed invention. See Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375, 2023 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2023) and Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367, 119 USPQ2d 1171, 1176 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
32. (New) The consumer electronics device of claim 30, wherein the self protection operations further comprise automatically setting the first time period based at least in part on a device type associated with the consumer electronics device.
As the prior art teaches a method suitable for many types of consumer devices and with each device being of different form functions, there is a reason to modify the prior art to achieve the claimed invention. Claims may be rejected as prima facie obvious provided there is also a reasonable expectation of success. The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to "the likelihood of success" in modifying prior art disclosures to meet the limitations of the claimed invention. See Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375, 2023 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2023) and Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367, 119 USPQ2d 1171, 1176 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
33. (New) The consumer electronics device of claim 30, wherein the self protection operations further comprise:
automatically detecting a device type associated with the consumer electronics device; and
automatically setting the intermediate threshold value based at least in part on the device type associated with the consumer electronics device.
As the prior art teaches a method suitable for many types of consumer devices and with each device being of different form functions, there is a reason to modify the prior art to achieve the claimed invention. Claims may be rejected as prima facie obvious provided there is also a reasonable expectation of success. The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to "the likelihood of success" in modifying prior art disclosures to meet the limitations of the claimed invention. See Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375, 2023 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2023) and Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367, 119 USPQ2d 1171, 1176 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
34. (New) The consumer electronics device of claim 21, wherein the self protection operations further comprise:
automatically detecting device information associated with the consumer electronics device, the device information comprising a make and/or a model of the consumer electronics device; and
automatically setting the impact threshold value based at least in part on the device information associated with the consumer electronics device.
As the prior art teaches a method suitable for many types of consumer devices and with each device being of different form functions, there is a reason to modify the prior art to achieve the claimed invention. Claims may be rejected as prima facie obvious provided there is also a reasonable expectation of success. The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to "the likelihood of success" in modifying prior art disclosures to meet the limitations of the claimed invention. See Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375, 2023 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2023) and Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367, 119 USPQ2d 1171, 1176 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C WEISBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10AM-8PM PCT.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/RICHARD C WEISBERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693