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 .
Response to Amendment
All pending claims 21-32, 34, 36, 37 and 39-43 filed February 06, 2025 are examined in this non-final office action necessitated by new grounds of rejection. Claims 1-20, 33, 35 and 38 are canceled.
Patent counsel is welcome to schedule a telephonic interview for further discussion/potential resolution.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed July 17, 2026 with respect to subject matter eligibility, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Rejection has been withdrawn.
The "automatically routing the computing device" element, when considered in combination with other claim elements, covers a particular solution to a problem in electronic commerce technology that is disclosed in the specification. The claimed solution is rooted in computer technology with no pre- computer analogue.
35 US 102/103
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed July 17, 2026 with respect to the rejections of claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Rejection under 35 USC 102 is withdrawn. Becotte, however, remains as the primary art under 35 USC 103. Becotte provides motivation to combine various features of “on click” with various features of “on impression.” Becotte teaches separate implementations that can be combined and/or various features in a single implementation can be implemented in multiple embodiments separately or in any suitable sub-combination:
[Becotte: 0124] While this specification contains many details, these should not be construed as limitations on the scope of what may be claimed, but rather as descriptions of features specific to particular examples. Certain features that are described in this specification in the context of separate implementations can also be combined. Conversely, various features that are described in the context of a single implementation can also be implemented in multiple embodiments separately or in any suitable sub-combination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 31 and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7 and 13 of Box, US 12,020,281, in view of Becotte et al., US 2018/0365034 “Becotte.”
Rejected claim 21 (represents claim 31 and 40)
Box claim 1 (represents independent claims 7 and 13)
(New) A computer-implemented method for dynamic link redirection, the method comprising:
Box: A computer-implemented method for dynamic link redirection, the method comprising:
receiving, from a computing device displaying content, an indication of a selection of a first link included within the content, the first link directing to a product sold by a first merchant; and
Box: information regarding a current content-link linking to a product sold by a first merchant
Although Box claim 1 does not expressly mention techniques for receiving an indication of a selection of a first link, Becotte on the other hand would have taught Box such techniques:
[Becotte: 0041] For example, if a first reader selects the dynamic link at a first time, the dynamic link platform can redirect the first reader to a first destination page based on the content provider's specifications.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Becotte, which direct a user selecting a content link to a first destination page, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Becotte to the teachings of Box would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
See more detail regarding Becotte below under 35 USC 102.
in response to receiving the indication:
identifying a plurality of links associated with a plurality of merchants that sell the product, the plurality of links including at least the first link and a second link, different from the first link, directing to the product sold by a second merchant;
Box: determining a selected content link linking to the product sold by a second merchant other than the first merchant among the plurality of alternative content links …
assessing each of the first link and the second link based on a plurality of assessment parameters associated with the first merchant and the second merchant; and
Box: based on the current assessment and the plurality of alternative assessments;
based on the assessing, automatically routing the computing device, via the second link, to the product sold by the second merchant in place of the product sold by the first merchant.
Box: replacing the current content link linking to the product sold by the first merchant with the selected content link linking to the product sold by the second merchant other than the first merchant;
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21-23, 26, 27, 29-32, 36, 37 and 39-43 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Becotte et al., US 2018/0365034 “Becotte.”
In Becotte see at least (underlined text is for emphasis):
Regarding claim 21: (New) A computer-implemented method for dynamic link redirection, the method comprising:
[Becotte: 0005] In some cases, a dynamic link platform system can dynamically determine a destination of a link “on click.” For instance, a publisher can generate a dynamic link and insert the generated dynamic link into published content (e.g., a web page). When a user accesses the published content using his browser and selects a dynamic link (e.g., “clicks” on the dynamic link), the user's browser is directed to a dynamic link platform. The dynamic link platform selects a destination from among a number of candidate destinations (e.g., by conducting an auction), and redirects the user's browser to the selected destination. Thus, a destination page is selected by the dynamic link platform when the user selects or “clicks” a dynamic link.
[Becotte: 0006] In some cases, a candidate destination can be selected “on impression.” For example, a publisher can insert executable code into published content (e.g., include a portion of JavaScript code in the markup of a web page). Further, the publisher can include a “traditional” static link in the published content (e.g., include a static link identifying a particular proposed destination web page). When a user accesses the published content using his browser, the browser automatically executes the executable code (e.g., upon loading of the web page).
[Becotte: 0124] While this specification contains many details, these should not be construed as limitations on the scope of what may be claimed, but rather as descriptions of features specific to particular examples. Certain features that are described in this specification in the context of separate implementations can also be combined. Conversely, various features that are described in the context of a single implementation can also be implemented in multiple embodiments separately or in any suitable sub-combination.
Given Becotte teaches separate implementations that can be combined and/or various features in a single implementation can be implemented in multiple embodiments separately or in any suitable sub-combination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine various features of “on click” with various features of “on impression.”
receiving, from a computing device displaying content, an indication of a selection of a first link included within the content, the first link directing to a product sold by a first merchant;
[Becotte: 0006] In some cases, a candidate destination can be selected “on impression.” For example, a publisher can insert executable code into published content (e.g., include a portion of JavaScript code in the markup of a web page). Further, the publisher can include a “traditional” static link in the published content (e.g., include a static link identifying a particular proposed destination web page). When a user accesses the published content using his browser, the browser automatically executes the executable code (e.g., upon loading of the web page). Upon execution of the executable code, the user's browser identifies the static link in the published content and transmits the static link to the dynamic link platform. The dynamic link platform retrieves content from the destination identified by the static link, determines one or more candidate destinations, and selects a destination from among the candidate destinations (e.g., in a similar amend as described above). Upon selecting a destination, the dynamic link transmits the address of the selected destination to the user's browser. Upon receiving the selected destination, the user's browser automatically replaces the static link with a new link identifying the selected destination, without requiring any action on the part of the user. When the user selects the new link, the user is directed to the selected destination. Thus, a destination page is selected by the dynamic link platform when the user first accesses the published content (e.g., “on impression” of the published content), rather than when the user selects or “clicks” on a particular link.
[Becotte: 0040] As an example, a content provider writing an online article about a product (e.g., an article discussing the content provider's impressions of the product) wishes to include a dynamic link to the product in the article, such that readers can purchase the product from a merchant.
in response to the receiving the indication:
identifying a plurality of links associated with a plurality of merchants that sell the product, the plurality of links including at least the first link and a second link, different from the first link, directing to the product sold by a second merchant;
[Becotte: 0040] … However, the content provider wishes the online article to be associated only with a particular pre-defined collection of merchants. For instance, the content provider may have pre-existing relationships with those particular merchants, may find those particular merchants more trustworthy than others, may find the character or style associated with those particular merchants consistent with the content of the online article, or may otherwise prefer those merchants over others. Accordingly, the content provider can specify that the dynamic link platform choose a destination only from among those particular pre-defined collection of merchants. When a reader accesses the dynamic link, the dynamic link platform automatically chooses a destination page from among the specified candidate merchants, and redirects the reader to the destination page.
assessing each of the first link and the second link based on a plurality of assessment parameters associated with the first merchant and the second merchant; and
[Becotte: 0040] … For instance, the content provider may have pre-existing relationships with those particular merchants, may find those particular merchants more trustworthy than others, may find the character or style associated with those particular merchants consistent with the content of the online article, or may otherwise prefer those merchants over others. Please note: Pre-existing relationships, particular merchants being more trustworthy than others, and character or style qualify as assessment parameters.
based on the assessing, automatically routing the computing device, via the second link, to the product sold by the second merchant in place of the product sold by the first merchant.
[Becotte: 0040] … Accordingly, the content provider can specify that the dynamic link platform choose a destination only from among those particular pre-defined collection of merchants. When a reader accesses the dynamic link, the dynamic link platform automatically chooses a destination page from among the specified candidate merchants, and redirects the reader to the destination page.
Please note: Given that this step automatically routs the computing device to the product sold by the second merchant based upon assessment parameters, assessing the first link is therefore extra solution activity that has no bearing on the outcome of the claim. The second merchant is always selected.
Regarding independent claims 31 and 40: Rejections are based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 21 by Becotte and further upon Becotte regarding system computing elements, see Becotte: Fig. 1 (system) and Fig. 5 (510 (processor), 520 (memory), & Input/Output devices.
Regarding claims 22 and 32: Rejections are based upon the disclosures applied to claims 21 and 31 recited above by Becotte regarding replacing the first link with the second link within the content:
[Becotte: 0112] In some cases, a candidate destination for a dynamic link also can be selected “on impression.” For instance, a publisher can generate a dynamic link and insert the generated dynamic link into published content (e.g., in a similar manner as described above). The publisher can also insert executable code into the published content (e.g., in a similar manner as described above). When a user accesses the published content using his browser, the browser automatically executes the executable code. Upon execution of the executable code, the user's browser identifies the dynamic link in the published content, and transmits the dynamic link to the dynamic link platform. In response, the dynamic link platform selects a destination from among one or more candidate destinations (e.g., in a similar amend as described above). Upon selecting a destination, the dynamic link transmits the address of the selected destination to the user's browser. Upon receiving the selected destination, the user's browser automatically replaces the dynamic link with a new link identifying the selected destination, without requiring any action on the part of the user. When the user selects the new link, the user is directed to the selected destination. Thus, a destination page is selected by the dynamic link platform when the user first accesses the published content (e.g., “on impression” of the published content), rather than when the user selects or “clicks” on a particular link.
Regarding claim 23: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 21 by Becotte and further upon Becotte regarding an update to the information associated with the content to replace the first link:
[Becotte: 0051] Further, the database module 202 can store information regarding one or more dynamic links generated and maintained by the system 100. A dynamic link can be, for example, a link having a fixed address (e.g., the network address of the platform 150), but where the ultimate destination to which an application (e.g., a browser) is directed upon accessing the link may change depending on select criteria. For each dynamic link, the database module 202 can store, for example, an identifier uniquely identifying the dynamic link (e.g., a unique URL), a user who generated the dynamic link, one or more candidate destinations for the dynamic link, and one or more selection criteria for choosing a destination from among the candidate destinations.
[Becotte: 0064] In some cases, the dynamic link platform 150 can identify the additional candidate destination pages automatically. For example, the dynamic link platform 150 can automatically retrieve content from one or more webpages, and index the webpages according to their content (e.g., an index describing the subject matter of the webpage). The generated index can be stored, for instance, in the database module 202. As an example, for each webpage, the dynamic link platform 150 can automatically determine the specific product or item being described by the webpage, and update a previously generated and stored index based on the determination. Relevant candidate webpages can be identified based on this index. For example, the index can be used to identify webpages having similar content as the proposed destination page.
Regarding claims 26 and 36: Rejections are based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 21 and 31 by Becotte and further upon Becotte regarding product stock level: Please note: “out-of-stock” qualifies as zero stock level.
Regarding claims 27 and 37: Rejections are based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 21 and 31 by Becotte and further upon Becotte regarding preferred merchants or merchants to be avoided:
[Becotte: 0069] In some cases, candidate destination pages can be identified based on the content provider's specifications. As an example, the content provider may wish that an online article be associated only with a particular pre-defined collection of merchants. For instance, the content provider may have pre-existing relationships with those particular merchants, may find those particular merchants more trustworthy than others, may find the character or style associated with those particular merchants consistent with the content of the online article, or may otherwise prefer those merchants over others. Accordingly, the content provider can specify that candidate destination pages include only webpages from a pre-defined collection of merchants (e.g., such that a destination page is chosen from a pre-defined “whitelist”). In some cases, a content provider can specify that one or more webpages or websites be excluded as candidate destination pages (e.g., such that certain destination pages are “blacklisted”).
Regarding claim 29: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 21 by Becotte and further upon Becotte regarding the second merchant selling identical product sold by the first merchant:
[Becotte: 0037] … The other candidate destination pages can include, for example, other merchants that sell the same article of clothing or product, or other webpages publishing information about the same event or hosting the same file.
[Becotte: 0063] … For example, if the user-identified proposed destination page is a merchant's webpage offering a particular product for sale, the dynamic link platform 150 can identify one or more additional webpages (e.g., maintained by one or more other merchants), each offering the same product for sale.
Regarding claims 30 and 39: Rejections are based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 29 and 31 by Becotte and further upon Becotte regarding the product sold by the second merchant is an identical product or equivalent product to the product sold by the first merchant:
[Becotte: 0063] … For example, if the user-identified proposed destination page is a merchant's webpage offering a particular product for sale, the dynamic link platform 150 can identify one or more additional webpages (e.g., maintained by one or more other merchants), each offering the same product for sale.
[Becotte: 0064] … As an example, for each webpage, the dynamic link platform 150 can automatically determine the specific product or item being described by the webpage, and update a previously generated and stored index based on the determination. Relevant candidate webpages can be identified based on this index. For example, the index can be used to identify webpages having similar content as the proposed destination page. Please note: Similar product content qualifies as equivalent product content.
Regarding claim 41: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 21 by Becotte and further upon Becotte regarding merchant products registered in a database including a portion of assessment parameters:
[Becotte: 0061] … For example, the dynamic link platform 150 can store, in the database module 202, a record that includes an indication of the dynamic link (e.g., a copy of the URL and/or the identifier sequence), and information that has been extracted from the proposed destination page, such as the identity of the entity maintaining the website, the identity of the product described on the website, a price of the product, specifications of the product, the availability of the product, and so forth. In some cases, the database module 202 can store multiple records for multiple dynamic links. As an example, the database module 202 can generate a table, with each entry (e.g., each row) corresponding to a different dynamic link and each field (e.g., each column) corresponding to a different item of information obtained from the proposed candidate page. Please note:
Regarding claim 42: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 21 by Becotte and further upon Becotte regarding the second link identified is not included with the content: Please note: The second link is not embedded in the content accessed by the user.
Regarding claim 43: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 21 by Becotte and further upon Becotte regarding determining the second merchant is a more optimal seller of the product than the first merchant:
[Becotte: 0040] … For instance, the content provider may have pre-existing relationships with those particular merchants, may find those particular merchants more trustworthy than others, may find the character or style associated with those particular merchants consistent with the content of the online article, or may otherwise prefer those merchants over others. Please note: A second merchant chosen based upon pre-existing relationships, being more trustworthy than others, and character or style qualify as being more optimal than other merchants.
Claims 24, 25, 28 and 34 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Becotte, US 2018/0365034, in view of Glazier et al., US 2020/0242648 “Glazier.”
Regarding claim 28: Rejection is based in part upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 21 and further upon the combination of Becotte-Glazier. Although in Becotte a) the first link directing to the product sold by the first merchant directs to a first product page for the product associated with the first merchant, and b) the second link directing to the product sold by the second merchant directs to a second product page for the product associated with the second merchant, Becotte does not expressly mention techniques for a purchase of the product resulting from an access of the first product page or the second product page via the first link or the second link, respectively, is trackable. Glazier on the other hand would have taught Becotte such techniques.
In Glazier see at least:
[Glazier: 0032] In one or more embodiments, referral links may be added by a communication intermediary in a communication path between a sender and receiver. The intermediary may receive a communication from the sender to a receiver. The communication may contain any or all of an identifier of the sender, an identifier of the receiver, and a communication body. The intermediary may transmit the communication or any portion thereof to a computer that executes a referral matcher. For example, the referral matcher may execute on a network gateway or on a server as a web service. The referral matcher may be coupled to the communication intermediary (and associated messaging gateway) associated with the sender, the recipient or both. The referral matcher may analyze the communication to determine whether there are any matches to listings in the referral database. When a match is found, the referral matcher may transform the communication to insert a referral link to a site or other resource associated with the matched item from the database. The link may also contain an embedded referral tracking code that identifies the referrer, which may be any combination of the sender, the receiver, or the intermediary. The transformed communication may be returned to the communication intermediary, which transmits it along the communication path to the receiver. If a receiver uses the link and completes an associated task (such as a purchase), a referral tracker may receive a notification of the transaction with the embedded referral tracking code, and credit the referrer for the transaction.
[Glazier: 0097] User 121 may then interact with site 202 to purchase goods or services or perform other transactions. When the user completes a transaction, for example using button 203, referral tracker 210 receives this information and credits the referring user with the successful referral. In one or more embodiments, information relating to completed transactions may be obtained from one or more third parties, including for example the merchant, an affiliate network, a credit card processor, or other system. For example, the website 202 may transmit a message to a referral tracker server with the URL 201 (so that the original referrer can be identified); this message may also include any additional details of the transaction. The referral tracker 210 may determine the amount and type of referral credit 211, based for example on the amount of the transaction and on specific arrangements with the e-commerce merchant for referrals. The referral tracker may then collect this credit from the referring merchant 212, and transmit this credit to the original referring user 101 (possibly net of a fee to the referral system provider). In one or more embodiments, the computer or server that executes referral matcher 110 may also execute or otherwise host referral tracker 210. In other embodiments, a distributed architecture may be utilized and multiple computers may implement the referral matcher 110 and referral tracker 210. Any cookie based technique or any other technique may be utilized to provide referral tracking so that for example a receiving user may use a link or otherwise purchase a product or service at a later date and still be tracked as taking an action because of the referral, so that the referral tracker may credit the referring user.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Glazier, which track referral links and purchase transactions in order to reward the content creator, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Glazier to the teachings and rationale of Becotte would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claims 24, 25 and 34: Rejections are based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 28 and 38 recited above by Becotte-Glazier and further upon the combination of Becotte-Glazier regarding for each of the first link and the second link, one of a score, a grade or an estimated commission earned by the creator of the content for custom purchases:
[Becotte: 0038] In some cases, the dynamic link platform can choose a destination page to be associated with a dynamic link through an electronic auction (e.g., an auction between merchants or other entities vying to be chosen as the destination page). In some cases, the dynamic link platform can choose a destination page to be associated with a dynamic link based on specific rules defining how destination pages are chosen. These rules can be based on various factors, such as a popularity of the destination page and/or the relevance of the destination page to the subject matter of the online publication.
[Becotte: 0065] In some cases, the dynamic link platform 150 can identify additional candidate destination pages based on one or more previously identified candidate destination pages. For example, once the dynamic link platform 150 has identified a first candidate destination page, the dynamic link platform 150 can identify one or more additional items (e.g., products) that have historically been matched to the same candidate page. Subsequently, the dynamic link platform 150 can use the recorded attributes of the additional items to generate search queries that will return a list of possible candidate pages based on relevance scores. Further, the dynamic link platform 150 can filter a list of candidate pages using deep learning (e.g., to identify other candidate pages that are likely to be directed to the same item or items).
[Becotte: 0086] In some cases, in response to receiving an access request from a reader, the dynamic link platform 150 can initially retrieve all of the candidate destination pages from the index and mark the entities associated with those candidate destination pages as participants in an auction. If an entity has a pre-arranged agreement (e.g., a fixed price/destination agreement), then the agreement can be enforced at that time. For example, the entity that controls a candidate destination page may be willing to pay a fee to ensure that all click traffic on a particular dynamic link or set of dynamic links is directed to their webpages. For instance, a particular merchant may wish to pay extra to guarantee that all dynamic links from a specific publisher are redirected to the merchant's webpages.
Becotte-Glazier teach a) merchant may pay extra to guarantee that all dynamic links are redirected to the merchant’s webpages, and b) may list links to candidate pages based on relevance scores. Becotte-Glazier further teach:
[Glazier: 0156] … This data shows the amount of referral fee each retailer pays for a completed transaction resulting from a recipient clicking on a referral link and completing a purchase. In this example, the site 1822 with the highest payment per sale is selected and is inserted as link 1823 into transformed message 1824.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2011/0029405 (Cronin et al.) “Systems and Methods for Linking to a Vendor,” discloses: [Abstract] A method includes receiving from a client terminal an indication of a selection of an item, selecting a vendor from a plurality of vendors, and sending a redirect message to the client terminal. The selection of the item is in response to the receipt of the indication of selection. Each of the vendors is offering the item for sale. The redirect message includes a reference to a webpage associated with the vendor and the item. In some embodiments, the method includes ranking the plurality of vendors based on at least two factors associated with each vendor and then selecting the vendor based on the ranking.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M POND whose telephone number is (571)272-6760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM-6:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ROBERT M POND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
September 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights