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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Examiner recommends that paragraph [0061] be reviewed for correct grammar: “The sensor mapping application 164 can used the captured data bout the space 300 to create a space mapping that maps out various objects included in the space mapping…”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Examples of such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a sensor mapping application configured to” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significant more than
the abstract idea. The rationale for this rejection, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is
explained below.
Step 1: Under step 1, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claim is directed to a
process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. For the claims in question, claims 1 and 19 are directed towards a method, and claim 11 is directed towards a machine.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Under step 2A, prong 1, the claims are evaluated to determine if the
claim recites a judicial exception, which includes the laws of nature, physical phenomena, or an
abstract idea.
For independent claims 1 and 11, the limitations relating to determining installation locations and determining an optimal scent dispensing location are directed towards a mental process. Given a space mapping (either in the form of a 2D or 3D rendering, or if an individual is physical present within a space/environment), an individual can reasonably determine potential installation locations for a scent dispenser. For a plug-in scent dispenser, potential installation locations are based on wall outlets present in a 2D/3D rendering or wall outlets visually identified in a space/environment. For a non-electrical scent dispenser (i.e., a scent dispenser which does not need to be plugged into a wall outlet), a scent dispenser can be placed on the ground or any flat surface. Additionally, to identify an optimal location, an individual can reasonably identify an optimal location as a location which has adequate and unobstructed airflow.
For independent claim 19, the limitations relating to identifying one or more different objects, determining dimensions of a space, determining relative positions between two objects (an outlet and a blocking object), and identifying an optimal installation location are directed towards a mental process. Similar to the reasoning provided for claims 1 and 11, an individual given a space mapping can reasonably identify different objects present in the space (including power outlets and any objects which may block a scent diffuser (e.g., plants, furniture, etc.)), determine a relative position between two objects (i.e., an outlet is behind a blocking object, or is far away from a blocking object), and consequently use that information to determine an optimal installation location where the scent diffuser will not be blocked.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Under step 2A, prong 2, the claims are evaluated to determine
whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application
of the exception (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The examiner notes that MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c) and (e)
generally concern limitations that are indicative of integration, whereas 2106.05(f)-(h) generally
concern limitations that are not indicative of integration.
In regards to claims 1 and 11, the limitations as described above are directed towards a mental process. The additional limitations relating to using a device or the components of a system including a sensor are recited at a high level of generality and/or are generic computing components, and do not constitute integration into a practical application or significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional limitations regarding generating a graphical representation and presenting the graphical representation to a user interface are considered extra-solution activity and do not constitute integration into a practical application or significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In regards to claim 19, the limitations as described above are directed towards a mental process. The additional limitations relating to using a device or the components of a system including a sensor are recited at a high level of generality and/or are generic computing components, and do not constitute integration into a practical application or significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional limitations regarding presenting to a graphical user interface an installation instruction is considered extra-solution activity and do not constitute integration into a practical application or significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In regards to claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20, the additional limitations are broadly recited and further disclose steps used to perform the judicial exception with any clear indication or detail which would indicate integration into a practical application as noted in MPEP 2106.05(a) or MPEP 2106.05(e). Therefore, the additional limitations of claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 do not constitute integration into a practical application.
The examiner emphasizes MPEP 2106.05(a), which states that a limitation is indicative of integration into a practical application if the limitation identifies a manner in which an improvement is explicitly and specifically achieved and recited in the claims. The current claim language all are recited at a high level of generality which do not serve to integrate the limitations in view of MPEP 2106.05(f), and furthermore nothing precludes the current limitations from being interpreted under the mental processes grouping.
Step 2B: Under step 2B, the claims are evaluated as a whole to determine if it amounts to
significantly more than the recited exception (i.e., whether any additional element, or
combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim). The considerations
of step 2A, prong 2 and step 2B overlap, but differ in that 2B also requires considering the claim
as a whole/combination of limitations, and with reference to MPEP 2106.05(d) whether the
claims feature any “specific limitation(s) other than what is well - understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field” (WURC). The examiner asserts that, even when considered in
combination, the additional elements of claims 1-20 represent mere instruction to apply a mental
process (identifying installation locations for a scent diffuser device) at a high level of generality that is generally linked to the field of using image processing techniques to process and analyze a space mapping and does not provide a specifically recited inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 11-14, and 16-17 are rejected as being unpatentable over Becker et al. (US 2016/0339136, as noted by document #2 in IDS filed on 05/15/2025; hereinafter “Becker”) in view of Lee (US 2017/0299394; hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 1, Becker discloses a method of using device sensors to install a scent dispensing device, comprising:
receiving a request from a sensor mapping application that a scent dispensing device is being installed in a space ([0132-0135], Becker discloses a system which tracks and communicates with scent dispersing devices in various locations.);
([0226], Becker discloses a data structure which models an environment where a scent dispenser will be placed.);
determining one or more installation locations within the space mapping ([0153], Becker discloses determining one or more locations to place a scent diffusion device within an environment.);
determining an optimal scent dispensing location from the one or more installation locations within the space mapping ([0226], Becker discloses recommending a placement of a scent diffusion device based on an environment model and a scent impression goal.);
generating a graphical representation depicting an installation of the scent dispensing device at the optimal scent dispensing location ([0031], [0226], Becker discloses an environment model consisting of various objects including a scent diffusion device placed at a recommended location.); and
presenting in a user interface on a display screen of the device the graphical representation depicting the installation of the scent dispensing device at the optimal scent dispensing location ([0226], Becker discloses a 3D display which presents an environment model.).
Becker does not explicitly disclose capturing using a device sensor on a device a space mapping of at least a portion of the space where the scent dispensing device is being installed (italicized for context).
Lee discloses capturing using a device sensor on a device a space mapping of at least a portion of the space where the scent dispensing device is being installed (italicized for context) (Fig. 4, [0041-0044], Lee discloses utilizing a device and obtaining a series of images of a room to identify objects and the locations of different objects.).
Becker and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of mapping an environment or room and identifying objects in the room. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Becker such that the environmental model processed by Becker is obtained using Lee’s disclosure of mapping a room using a series of images. The motivation for this combination being the ability to give the user the ability to live-map a room or region.
Claim 11 is the system claim corresponding to claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding Claim 2, Becker in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1, wherein capturing the space mapping further comprises: determining based on the space mapping one or more dimensions of the space ([0225-0226], Becker discloses presenting the dimensions of an environment. The Examiner notes Becker further discloses identifying the shape and size of the environment.).
Claim 12 is the system claim corresponding to claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding Claim 3, Becker in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the dimensions of the space includes one or more of a length of the space, a width of the space, a height of the space, a volume of the space, and an area of the space ([0023], [0225-0228], Becker discloses determining the shape and size of the environment, including determining the volume of a room in the environment.).
Claim 13 is the system claim corresponding to claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding Claim 4, Becker in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the device sensor is a camera of a client device and the space mapping is one or more images of the space captured by the camera (Fig. 4, [0041-0044], Lee discloses obtaining a series of images from a camera.).
Claim 16 is the system claim corresponding to claim 4 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding Claim 5, Becker in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 4, wherein determining the installation locations within the space mapping further comprises performing object recognition to determine one or more objects present within the one or more images ([0044], Lee discloses identifying various objects in an image.).
Claim 14 is the system claim corresponding to claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding Claim 6, Becker in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the one or more determined objects present within the images may be compared to a database of common objects to determine one or more dimensions of the space ([0044], Lee discloses utilizing a database to identify objects.).
Regarding Claim 17, Becker in view of Lee teaches the scent dispensing device installation system of claim 11, wherein the sensor device is a lidar sensor that maps out a plurality of distances to capture the space mapping ([0025], Lee discloses using a laser scanner. Also see [0137], Becker discloses using a laser distance meter to measure a room.).
Claims 7-8 are rejected as being unpatentable over Becker in view of Lee in view of Bogolea and Tiwari (US 2020/0293992; hereinafter “Bogolea”).
Regarding Claim 7, Becker in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 5.
Becker in view of Lee does not explicitly teach wherein determining the installation locations within the space mapping further comprises determining one or more power outlet locations that the scent dispensing device can plug into (The Examiner does notes [0130] wherein Becker discloses that the scent dispenser is plugged into AC/DC power, and consequently detection of a scent dispensing device also includes the detection of a power outlet.).
Bogolea discloses wherein determining the installation locations within the space mapping further comprises determining one or more power outlet locations that the scent dispensing device can plug into ([0098-0099], Bogolea discloses identifying electrical outlets in an image.).
Becker, Lee, and Bogolea are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of identifying objects in the room. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Becker in view of Lee to further include Bogolea’s disclosure regarding identifying and detecting power outlets. The motivation for this combination being the ability to increase the domain of items which can be detected by the invention.
Regarding Claim 8, Becker in view of Lee in view of Bogolea teaches the method of claim 7, wherein determining the optimal scent dispensing location from the one or more installation locations within the space mapping further comprises:
determining an obstruction present within the space mapping ([0031], [0097], [0226-0230], Becker discloses identifying a scent dispenser and various objects (such as plants) which can impact (i.e., impede or block) the smell diffusion.);
determining a walkway present within the space mapping ([0226], [0233-0234], [0244], Becker discloses placing a scent diffusion device in a walkway and further based on the scent diffusion device modeling the environment and showing consumer pathways.); and
identifying which of the power outlet locations is optimized based on the determined obstruction and the determined walkway ([0031], [0097], [0130], [0165], [0226], Becker discloses recommending a placement of a scent diffusion device based on scent impression goals and environmental data, which includes objects which may impact scent diffusion. The Examiner notes that the recommended placement of a scent diffusion device further includes a power outlet location as the scent diffusion device is connected to AC or DC power.).
Claims 9 is rejected as being unpatentable over Becker in view of Lee in view of Inoue and Kunugi (US 2024/0331660; hereinafter “Inoue”).
Regarding Claim 9, Becker in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1.
The current combination of Becker in view of Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the graphical representation depicting the installation of the scent dispensing device at the optimal scent dispensing location is an overlay and presenting in the user interface on the display screen of the device further comprises placing the overlay over the space mapping on the display screen of the device (The Examiner does note Fig. 5, [0021-0031], [0225-0232], wherein Becker discloses placing scent diffusion devices in an area in the environment and consequently displaying the environment on a display.).
Inoue discloses wherein the graphical representation depicting the installation of the scent dispensing device at the optimal scent dispensing location is an overlay and presenting in the user interface on the display screen of the device further comprises placing the overlay over the space mapping on the display screen of the device ([0044], [0057], Inoue discloses superimposing the location of various objects on a map.).
Becker, Lee, and Inoue are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of presenting information to a user on a display. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Becker in view of Lee such that the displaying of an optimal scent displaying location is overlaid onto the image based on the disclosure provided by Inoue. The motivation for this combination being the ability to present specific location or position information to a user.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected as being unpatentable over Becker in view of Lee in view of Edwards and Field (WO2020210641; hereinafter “Edwards”).
Regarding Claim 10, Becker in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining one or more installation locations within the space mapping further comprises: detecting a scent dispensing device within the space mapping; locations based on the estimated space dimensions ([0225-0226], Becker discloses determining the placement of a scent diffusion device in an environment based on the shape and size of an environment.).
Becker in view of Lee does not explicitly teach wherein determining one or more installation locations within the space mapping further comprises (italicized for context) estimating space dimensions using a known scale of the scent dispensing device.
Edwards discloses wherein determining one or more installation locations within the space mapping further comprises (italicized for context) estimating space dimensions using a known scale of the scent dispensing device (Page 5, lines 14-19, Edwards discloses identifying a dimension or relative size (i.e., based on a scale of a scent dispensing device) of a physical space.).
Becker, Lee, and Edwards are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of presenting information to a user on a display. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Becker in view of Lee such that the determination of different installation locations utilized the space dimensions based on the relative size (relative to the size of the scent dispensing device) as disclosed by Edwards. The motivation for this combination being the ability to take into consideration the size of the scent dispensing device when determining optimal installation locations.
Regarding Claim 15, Becker in view of Lee teaches the scent dispensing device installation system of claim 14.
The current combination of Becker in view of Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the object in the space mapping is the scent dispensing device and wherein determining the dimensions of the space further comprises using a known scale of the scent dispensing device to estimate the dimensions of the space.
Edwards discloses the current combination of Becker in view of Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the object in the space mapping is the scent dispensing device and wherein determining the dimensions of the space further comprises using a known scale of the scent dispensing device to estimate the dimensions of the space (Page 5, lines 14-19, Edwards discloses identifying a dimension or relative size (i.e., based on a scale of a scent dispensing device) of a physical space.).
Becker, Lee, and Edwards are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of presenting information to a user on a display. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Becker in view of Lee such that the determination of the dimensions of a space is based on the relative size (i.e., relative to the size of the scent dispensing device) as disclosed by Edwards. The motivation for this combination being the ability to take into consideration the size of the scent dispensing device when determining the size of the environment.
Claim 18 is rejected as being unpatentable over Becker in view of Lee in view of Jones et al. (US 2020/0297887; hereinafter “Jones”).
Regarding Claim 18, Becker in view of Lee teaches the scent dispensing device installation system of claim 11, wherein scent dispensing device includes an audio output device ([0083], [0115], [0245], Becker discloses a scent diffusion device which can emit signals in the form of sound and additionally connected with a sound system.)
The current combination of Becker in view of Lee does not explicitly teach the sensor
Jones discloses the sensor([0178], Jones discloses using sensors as a way to determine distances between a scent dispenser and a controller.).
Becker, Lee, and Jones are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of connecting and communicating with a network of devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Becker in view of Lee such that the audio signals produced by the scent dispenser, as taught by Becker in view of Lee, is used by the methods disclosed by Jones to determine a distance between a controller and a scent dispenser. The motivation for this combination being the ability to use sound as a way to determine location.
Claims 19-20 are rejected as being unpatentable over Becker in view of Bogolea.
Regarding Claim 19, Becker discloses a method of guiding installation of a scent dispensing device, the method comprising:
([0226], Becker discloses a data structure which models an environment where a scent dispenser will be placed.);
identifying, using a processor of a sensor mapping application, one or more objects within the space mapping, the one or more objects including the scent dispensing device, ([0031], [0097], [0226-0230], Becker discloses identifying a scent dispenser and various objects (such as plants) which can impact (i.e., impede or block) the smell diffusion. The Examiner further notes [0130] wherein Becker discloses that the scent dispenser is plugged into AC or DC power, and consequently detection of a scent dispensing device also includes the detection of a power outlet.);
determining, using the processor of the sensor mapping application, one or more dimensions of the space using the space mapping ([0225-0226], Becker discloses presenting the dimensions of an environment. The Examiner notes Becker further discloses identifying the shape and size of the environment.);
determining, using the processor of the sensor mapping application, a first relative positions in the space mapping of the object and a second relative position in the space mapping of the blocking object based on the one or more dimensions of the space mapping ([0031], [0226], Becker discloses object represented in a three-dimensional relationship (i.e., the three-dimensional relationship between objects provides a relationship/distance between any two objects within an environment).);
determining, using the processor of the sensor mapping application, an optimal scent dispensing location based on the first relative positions in the space mapping of the object and the second relative position in the space mapping of the blocking object ([0031], [0097], [0165], [0226], Becker discloses recommending a placement of a scent diffusion device based scent impression goals and environmental data, which includes objects which may impact scent diffusion.); and
presenting for display in a graphical user interface, an installation instruction to install the scent dispensing device at the optimal scent dispensing location ([0031], [0226], Becker discloses displaying an environment model which includes a scent diffusion device placed at a recommended location.).
Becker does not explicitly disclose capturing, using a device sensor, a space mapping of a space in which a scent dispensing device is being installed (italicized for context), and identifying a power outlet.
Bogolea discloses capturing, using a device sensor, a space mapping of a space in which a scent dispensing device is being installed (italicized for context), and identifying a power outlet ([0011], [0098-0099], Bogolea discloses using a device to scan an environment to obtain a 3D spatial map and further discloses identifying electrical outlets in an image.).
Becker and Bogolea are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of mapping an environment or room and identifying objects in the room. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Becker such that it incorporates Bogolea’s disclosure of using an additional device to map an environment and determine positions of electrical outlets, such that this information is further used to determine relative positions of objects in order to determine an optimal location of a scent dispenser, as disclosed by Becker. The motivation for this combination being the ability to identify power outlets needed for a scent dispenser device and furthermore give the user the ability to map a specific environment.
Regarding Claim 20, Becker in view of Bogolea teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the one or more dimensions of the space include a length of the space, a width of the space, a height of the space, a volume of the space, and an area of the space ([0023], [0225-0228], Becker discloses determining the shape and size of the environment, including determining the volume of a room in the environment.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20220254156A1 Williams et al. (US20220254156A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PROMOTTO TAJRIAN ISLAM whose telephone number is (703)756-5584. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chan Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/PROMOTTO TAJRIAN ISLAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2669
/CHAN S PARK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights