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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on May 14, 2026, wherein claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are geared towards newly (and heavily) amended claims with newly added limitations. The newly amended claims with the newly added limitations are considered for the first time in the rejection below.
35 USC §101 discussion:
Applicant claimed concepts (and most of Applicant’s limitations) are geared towards using obtained information (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. information regarding job requirements, employment, locations, availability, other abstract variables, etc.,) to make recommendations regarding jobs and locations (e.g. optimal locations) for the jobs. The claims also show significant mathematical steps and mathematical results (for example, among others, computing a respective score for each sub-variable of the one or more sub-variables corresponding to each variable of the plurality of variables; generating based upon a respective weight and the respective score for each sub-variable corresponding to each variable of the plurality of variables, an aggregate variable score for each variable of the plurality of variables; computing based upon the aggregate variable score and a respective weight corresponding to the aggregate variable score for each variable of the plurality of variables, a respective location index…dynamically updating the respective weight of each variable). The claims discuss a display/interface but this element is only used to present abstract information and the interface itself is just used in an apply-it fashion. As stated before, the independent claims (1, 8, 15) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-14, 16-20) recite acquiring/obtaining information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. employment information, variables (which correspond to a job and job requirements (e.g. cost, capacity, capability, and other additional statistics and their weighted average scores and default weights)), etc.,), data analysis and manipulation (including comparing information, performing mathematical calculations to get scores, aggregations (math), organizing information, etc.,) to determine more abstract information/data, and providing/displaying this determined data for further analysis and decision-making/recommendations/etc.,. The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps (shown above – e.g. performing mathematical calculations to get scores, aggregations (math), using concepts of discrete/continuous mathematics, etc.,) to analyze and determine further abstract information/data to use in the main abstract concept. The limitations of the independent claims (1, 8, 15) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-14, 16-20), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, clearly cover methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (employment concepts and following rules or instructions)), mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including (in the current claims) observation, evaluation, and judgment/decision regarding what is determined to be best location (for a company/enterprise and humans/candidates for jobs (to be done by humans)) based on abstract information)), and mathematical concepts (using mathematical techniques and using the results of the techniques – e.g. performing mathematical calculations to get scores, aggregations (math), using concepts of discrete/continuous mathematics, etc.,).
All the technical additional elements (processors (for processing/pre-processing), computer-implemented, computing, display, user-interface, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-7); system, memory, machine executable instructions (software), processor, display, etc., (in independent claim 8 and its dependent claims 9-14); and non-transitory computer-readable medium (CRM), machine executable instructions (software), processors, computing device, display, user-interface etc., (independent claim 15 and its dependent claims 16-20)), are old/well-known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general purpose computer/computing functions. (MPEP 2106.04). The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computing/components/elements/terms/limitations. The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes (discussed above) involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements (see list/listing above) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements (see list/listing above) or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344 (2014) discussing U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the independent claims (1, 8, 15) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-14, 16-20) do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the independent claims (1, 8, 15) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-14, 16-20) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
Also see rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Note: The above discussion presented in the Response to Arguments section is fully incorporated in this rejection in addition to the rejection discussed below.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-7 are directed to a method (i.e., process), claims 8-14 are directed to a system (i.e. machine), and claims 15-20 are directed to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. product or article of manufacture). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent claims (1, 8, 15) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-14, 16-20) recite acquiring/obtaining information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. employment information, variables (which correspond to a job and job requirements (e.g. cost, capacity, capability, and other additional statistics and their weighted average scores and default weights)), etc.,), data analysis and manipulation (including comparing information, performing mathematical calculations to get scores, aggregations (math), organizing information, etc.,) to determine more abstract information/data, and providing/displaying this determined data for further analysis and decision-making/recommendations/etc.,. The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps (shown above – e.g. performing mathematical calculations to get scores, aggregations (math), using concepts of discrete/continuous mathematics, etc.,) to analyze and determine further abstract information/data to use in the main abstract concept. Applicant claimed concepts (and most of Applicant’s limitations) are geared towards using obtained information (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. information regarding job requirements, employment, locations, availability, other abstract variables, etc.,) to make recommendations regarding jobs and locations (e.g. optimal locations) for the jobs. The claims also show significant mathematical steps and mathematical results (for example, among others, computing a respective score for each sub-variable of the one or more sub-variables corresponding to each variable of the plurality of variables; generating based upon a respective weight and the respective score for each sub-variable corresponding to each variable of the plurality of variables, an aggregate variable score for each variable of the plurality of variables; computing based upon the aggregate variable score and a respective weight corresponding to the aggregate variable score for each variable of the plurality of variables, a respective location index…dynamically updating the respective weight of each variable).
The limitations of the independent claims (1, 8, 15) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-14, 16-20), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (employment concepts and following rules or instructions)), mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including (in the current claims) observation, evaluation, and judgment/decision regarding what is determined to be best location (for a company/enterprise and humans/candidates for jobs (to be done by humans)) based on abstract information)), and mathematical concepts (using mathematical techniques and using the results of the techniques – e.g. performing mathematical calculations to get scores, aggregations (math), using concepts of discrete/continuous mathematics, etc.,). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as 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 scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04). If claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitation as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), the claim limitations fall within the Mental process grouping of abstract ideas. If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations then it falls within the Mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57).
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping, mental processes grouping and mathematical concepts grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of old/well-known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms (see listing below), in the context of the independent claims (1, 8, 15) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-14, 16-20), the independent claims (1, 8, 15) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-14, 16-20) encompass the above stated abstract idea (organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (employment concepts and following rules or instructions)), mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including (in the current claims) observation, evaluation, and judgment/decision regarding what is determined to be best location (for a company/enterprise and humans/candidates for jobs (to be done by humans)) based on abstract information)), and mathematical concepts (using mathematical techniques and using the results of the techniques – e.g. performing mathematical calculations to get scores, aggregations (math), using concepts of discrete/continuous mathematics, etc.,)). The old/well-known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations used in the claims (and in the specification) by the Applicant are in the following list/listing (additional elements):
processors (for processing/pre-processing), computer-implemented, computing, display, user-interface, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-7);
system, memory, machine executable instructions (software), processor, display, etc., (in independent claim 8 and its dependent claims 9-14); and
non-transitory computer-readable medium (CRM), machine executable instructions (software), processors, computing device, display, user-interface etc., (independent claim 15 and its dependent claims 16-20).
(hereinafter the above list/listing will be referred to as “generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above)” or “additional elements (see list/listing above)” in the rest of the §101 rejection – i.e. whenever “generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above)” or “additional elements (see list/listing above)” is used/stated in the rest of the §101 rejection it is referring to and incorporates the above list/listing).
As shown above, the independent claims (1, 8, 15) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-14, 16-20) and specification recite generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general purpose computer/computing functions. (MPEP 2106.04). The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above). The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes (discussed above) involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements (see list/listing above) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The independent claims (1, 8, 15) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-14, 16-20) do not include additional elements (see list/listing above) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The independent claims (1, 8, 15) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-14, 16-20) recite using known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, Figs. 1 and 8 [shows general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,] and ¶¶ 0146-0153 [where Applicant recites general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc., in Applicant’s specification]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claims into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements (see list/listing above) or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344 (2014) discussing U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the independent claims (1, 8, 15) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-14, 16-20) do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the independent claims (1, 8, 15) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-14, 16-20) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims (2-7, 9-14, 16-20) further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The above rejection fully includes and details the discussion of dependent claims and the above rejection applies to all the dependent claim limitations. In summary, the dependent claims (2-7, 9-14, 16-20) further state using obtained/acquired data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature – as shown above), data analysis and manipulation (including comparing information, performing mathematical calculations to get scores, aggregations (math), organizing information, etc.,) to determine more abstract information/data, and providing/displaying this determined data for further analysis and decision-making/recommendations/etc.,. The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps (shown above – e.g. performing mathematical calculations to get scores, aggregations (math), using concepts of discrete/continuous mathematics, etc.,) to analyze and determine further abstract information/data to use in the main abstract concept. These dependent claims are directed towards covers methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (employment concepts and following rules or instructions)), mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including (in the current claims) observation, evaluation, and judgment/decision regarding what is determined to be best location (for a company/enterprise and humans/candidates for jobs (to be done by humans)) based on abstract information)), and mathematical concepts (using mathematical techniques and using the results of the techniques – e.g. performing mathematical calculations to get scores, aggregations (math), using concepts of discrete/continuous mathematics, etc.,). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above) performing generic computer/computing/technology functions. (MPEP 2106.04 and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The additional elements (see list/listing above) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements. Also, the dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the juridical exception because the additional elements (see list/listing above) either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself. See detailed rejection above.
Prior art discussion (not a rejection)
As per the independent claims (1, 8, 15), the prior art of record most closely resembling Applicant's claimed invention are Jarnigin et al., (US 2024/0220933) in view of Hanna et al., (US 2021/0383308). However, neither Jarnigin nor Hanna individually nor in combination teach or suggest the specific concept (limitations describing the concept) of independent claims (1, 8, 15) which recite “causing, by the one or more processors, based upon evaluation of the respective weight for each variable of the plurality of variables, display of…location recommendations for the job along with the respective location index on a user interface, wherein the location recommendations include optimal locations recommended for the job, wherein the display includes: a detailed view that indicates top-k locations of the optimal locations for the job, the respective location index for each location of the top-k locations, and insights for all the top-k locations, and a map view that shows the top-k locations with circles representing the respective location index, wherein the top-k locations belong to same or different geographical area.” Note that it is the specific ordered combination of the claim elements in the independent claims cannot be found in the prior art (including art cited in PTO-892) and can only be found in Applicant's Specification. The prior art of record (including art cite on PTO-892) does not teach or suggest (the reference individually or in combination) Applicant's current independent claims as a whole (it is the entire claimed concept described by the limitations collectively coming together that is not rejected under prior art (the core concept is shown in the claim as a whole - limitations organized in the specific form and coming together collectively to form the concept)). Furthermore, any combination of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all of the claim elements would not be obvious and would result in impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
As per the dependent claims, these claims depend on the not rejected independent claims above and incorporate the limitations thereof, and are therefore not rejected under prior art for at least the same rationale as applied to the independent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Note that all the claims remain rejected under §101 above and are therefore not allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the pertinent prior art is as follows:
Wang et al., (US 2018/0096306): Discusses analyzing job listing data and member profile data to identify in demand skills is disclosed. A computer system receives a request for recommended job listings from a client device. The system accesses a plurality of job listings from a database. The system parses each of the job listings of the plurality of job listings to identify a list of skills required by each job listing. The system accesses a plurality of member profiles. The system analyzes the plurality of member profiles to extract a list of skills from each member profile. For a particular skill in the list of skills, the system calculates a first number of job listings requiring the particular skill and a first number of members who possess the particular skill. The system determines a skill gap value for the particular skill based on the number of job listings requiring that particular skill and the number of members who possess that particular skill.
Goldberg et al., (US 2005/0222883): Discusses assessing products and candidate locations, thereby suggesting where the client should place its human resources. As another example, a company may implement a service whereby another company's resource placement decisions can be validated prior to implementation. When provided for a fee, a service of either type may be provided under various revenue models, such as pay-per-use billing, a subscription service, monthly or other periodic billing, and so forth.
Hanna et al., (US 2021/0383229): Illustrates determining an optimal office location or locations for a job position. For example, the system may determine that an office in Charleston, S.C. is the optimal location to hire a software programmer for a company that has office locations in Atlanta, Ga., Tampa, Fla., Seattle, Wash., and Charleston, S.C.). In various embodiments, the disclosed system may utilize machine learning systems and processes for location recommendations for businesses hiring employees. In several embodiments, the businesses may be hiring for jobs that are paid hourly, annually, by a contracted price, or set by a local or state union.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. 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.
/Gurkanwaljit Singh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
