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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner Notes
(1) In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121 (b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131 (b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
(2) Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Remarks
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment file on 05/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, applicant argues that “"generate a first version of an activity feed for the first user by removing the one or more activities performed by one or more other members of the group chat" and "generate a second version of the activity feed for the third user, in which the one or more activities are displayed." These limitations recite computer-specific operations that necessitate a computing device.” (page 8, last paragraph). Applicant further argues that ““generating a first version for the first user" based on a "permission" "assigned to the first user" and "generat[ing] a second version of the activity feed" for another user are computer-specific operations which are not directed to organizing human activity. Further, these operations require computational capabilities that are beyond human capability to practically perform mentally or by aid of pen and papers.”” (last paragraph of page 8, first paragraph of page 9) Applicant further argues “These permission-based controls provide a technical improvement to online matching systems by enabling the system to selectively govern, on a per-user basis, the information presented within the same group-based matching environment” (first paragraph of page 12). Respectfully, it is noted that these limitations recite a long-standing real-word social activity of including other user’s opinions on prospective date or match candidates. This is an abstract idea of allowing humans to exchange information and form relationships, or said otherwise managing relationships between people based on a second person’s recommendation. For instance, these limitations essentially recite a first person in a group, that might include friends, family members, colleagues looking for others to connect with and being given recommendations. Based on the matching profiles, the group of users are enable communication for further interaction. Further, limitations “determine that a first permission, assigned to the first user, indicates that the first user is not permitted to view one or more activities”, “generate a first version of an activity feed for the first user by removing the one or more activities performed by one or more other members of the group chat” and “generate a second version of the activity feed for the third user, in which the one or more activities are displayed” recites mental process- one can mentally assign certain user permission to view all the activities data and determine certain activities data need to be hidden from the user based on the mentally assigned permission; displaying the whole and/or portion of activities data based on one judgement in regard permission [mental process], simply recites extra-insignificant solution activity. At best it is an improved abstract idea of how to filter the data based on permissions for display, which is an abstract idea.
Therefore, 101 rejection is maintained for claim 21.
The 101 rejection of claim 31 is maintained for similar reason.
Regarding 103 rejection, applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21 and 31 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection (See new references of Phan).
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 21-40 are directed to non-statutory subject matter because it does not fall within four categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C 101 (Process, machine manufacture or composition of matter).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (Step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B). Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas.
Analysis
STEP 1:
Claims 21, and 31 subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Analysis
STEP 2A, PRONG l (Claim 21):
Under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The claim recites the following limitations that are collectively directed to an abstract idea:
(a) “create a first group comprising a first user profile associated with a first user and a second user profile associated with a second user”
(b) “create a second group comprising a third user profile associated with a third user”
(c) “determine that the first user from the first group is compatible with the third user from the second group based at least on a similarity between the first user profile and the third user profile”
(d) “in response to determining that the first user from the first group is compatible with the third user from the second group: transmit, using the interface, an indication of the first group to a first user device associated with the third user”
(e) “receive, using the interface, a selection of the first group by the third user from the first user device”
(f) “in response to receiving the selection of the first group by the third user from the first user device: generate a group match between the first group and the second group”
(g) “enable communication between the first group and the second group in a group chat”
(h) “determine that a first permission, assigned to the first user, indicates that the first user is not permitted to view one or more activities”
(i) “generate a first version of an activity feed for the first user by removing the one or more activities performed by one or more other members of the group chat”
(j) “generate a second version of the activity feed for the third user, in which the one or more activities are displayed”
Limitations (a) though (j) above, but for the recitation of generic computer components, are collectively directed to an abstract idea that falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, and particularly the sub-grouping of “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” including “social activities” as provided in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
These limitations recite a long-standing real-word social activity of including other user’s opinions on prospective date or match candidates. This is an abstract idea of allowing humans to exchange information and form relationships, or said otherwise managing relationships between people based on a second person’s recommendation. For instance, these limitations essentially recite a first person in a group, that might include friends, family members, colleagues looking for others to connect with and being given recommendations. Based on the matching profiles, the group of users are enable communication for further interaction. Further, limitations (h) to (j) also recites mental process- one can mentally assign certain user permission to view all the activities data and determine certain activities data need to be hidden from the user based on the mentally assigned permission; displaying the activities data based on one judgement, simply recites merely constitute extra-insignificant solution activity.
Accordingly limitations (a)-(j) recite an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
• That the abstract idea is implemented on a computer including the components of “an interface configured to send and receive data over a network”, “a hardware processor”, and “device”. These limitations are a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
• The limitations “transmit”, “receive” and “display” are part of the abstract idea for the ‘certain method of organizing human activity’ of managing relationships. But even if considered as additional elements, they do not provide integration into a practical application.
Under step 2B, the limitations “transmit”, “receive”, “display” merely constitute extra-insignificant solution activity (mere data gathering and output, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated; see MPEP 2106.05(g) – presenting offers, selecting information examples) and is well-known, conventional, and routine in the art (See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering); see MPEP 2106.05(d), II; receive/transmit over network; store/retrieve from memory/storage), which are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), " iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 31 is rejected under U.S.C. 101 for similar reasons.
Claims 22-30 and 32-40 are dependent on their respective parent claims and include all the limitations of these claims; these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus the claims are direct to abstract idea.
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 of this title, 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 21-25, 27-35 and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gellis et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0046439 A1) in view of Phan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0160201 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Gellis teaches an apparatus comprising:
an interface configured to send and receive data over a network; and a hardware processor operably coupled with the interface, and configured to: create a first group comprising a first user profile associated with a first user and a second user profile associated with a second user (Fig. 12, paragraph [0108], an online community which is organized as groups of individuals, which is coupled to a mechanism whereby an individual user can create and/or join and become a member of one or more groups, of which the online community couples two or more groups; also see paragraph [0065], each group may comprise or otherwise be associated with its own group profile; a group may comprise or otherwise be associated with one or more members’ individual profiles);
create a second group comprising a third user profile associated with a third user (Fig. 12, paragraph [0108], an online community which is organized as groups of individuals, which is coupled to a mechanism whereby an individual user can create and/or join and become a member of one or more groups, of which the online community couples two or more groups; also see paragraph [0065], each group may comprise or otherwise be associated with its own group profile; a group may comprise or otherwise be associated with one or more members’ individual profiles);
determine that the first user from the first group is compatible with the third user from the second group based at least on a similarity between the first user profile and the third user profile (paragraph [0067], seek to match group of users based on one or all of the group attributes, or the attributes of one or more individuals in the group; also see paragraph [0069], the matching service may also be configured for determining, as function of both the indication of user profile and the indication of the current personality profile);
and in response to determining that the first user from the first group is compatible with the third user from the second group: transmit, using the interface, an indication of the first group to a first user device associated with the third user (paragraph [0072], once a second group is selected, the matching service may access a database to identify information indicating how the second group like to be displayed; a group may have chosen a particular picture, skin, or the like to be displayed);
receive, using the interface, a selection of the first group by the third user from the first user device (paragraph [0073], this information is then transmitted, in a format configured for displayed at the mobile device, to the mobile device, thereby representing the second group as candidate for matching);
and in response to receiving the selection of the first group by the third user from the first user device: generate a group match between the first group and the second group (paragraph [0073], this information is then transmitted, in a format configured for displayed at the mobile device, to the mobile device, thereby representing the second group as candidate for matching; also see paragraph [0074]-[0075], receiving an indication of a type of feedback input at the first mobile device; also see paragraph [0077], in an instance of a second type of feedback (e.g., positive), the matching service may be configured for facilitating an interaction with the second group); and enable communication between the first group and the second group in a group chat (paragraph [0077], in an instance of a second type of feedback (e.g., positive), the matching service may be configured for facilitating an interaction with the second group; also see paragraph [0101], a single swipe action on a touch or position-sensing interface, which in turn triggers a group acceptance processes, involving two or more people, which in turn triggers a message process (email, chat, chatbox, in-app-chat-box, social messaging, texting, video chat, etc.)).
Gellis does not explicitly disclose: determine that a first permission, assigned to the first user, indicates that the first user is not permitted to view one or more activities; generate a first version of an activity feed for the first user by removing the one or more activities performed by one or more other members of the group chat; and generate a second version of the activity feed for the third user, in which the one or more activities are displayed.
Phan teaches: determine that a first permission, assigned to the first user, indicates that the first user is not permitted to view one or more activities (paragraph [0089], the mapping information stored at the server library is useful in determining whether and how much of the activity data can be surface to a user account; the amount of detail content management system presents to a user of content management system may depend on what level of access a corresponding user account at third-party service has; certain activity information obtained about activities at third-party services may be made available to only certain users; also see Fig. 2A-B, paragraph [0092], first user’s TPS-account 206 has access permissions to second container access permission 216B and therefore, second container access permission 222B allows for full access permission for the first user’s account with respect to activities at second container 216B but only limit access permissions for second user’s account 210 since there is no user account with access permissions to second container 216B at first third-party service 202A that is associated with second user’s account 210; noted, there is limited activities data surface to specific user [second user’s account] because of level access that corresponding to said specific user [not having permission for data in second container]; also see paragraph [0082], [0085]);
generate a first version of an activity feed for the first user by removing the one or more activities performed by one or more other members of the group chat (paragraph [0089], the mapping information stored at the server library is useful in determining whether and how much of the activity data can be surface to a user account; the amount of detail content management system presents to a user of content management system may depend on what level of access a corresponding user account at third-party service has; certain activity information obtained about activities at third-party services may be made available to only certain users; also see Fig. 2A-B, paragraph [0092], first user’s TPS-account 206 has access permissions to second container access permission 216B and therefore, second container access permission 222B allows for full access permission for the first user’s account with respect to activities at second container 216B but only limit access permissions for second user’s account 210 since there is no user account with access permissions to second container 216B at first third-party service 202A that is associated with second user’s account 210; also see Fig. 3A and Fig. 4, paragraph [0094]; client activity feed service 136 may receive (302) a notification for an activity associated with a content item on third-party service 202 wherein the content item may be managed by content management system 110 and accessible by a user; activity feed service 136 may then identify (304) permissions granted to the user on third-party service 202, the user being one whom for the activity feed is to be displayed, and based on the activity information and permissions granted to the user on third-party service 202, determine (306) whether to include an activity notification about the activity (e.g., activity notification 406A) within activity feed interface 414 (see FIG. 4); noted, as activity feed based on user permission, thus, for example, if users are restricted certain activity data [may not available to certain users], then user might not have access to those certain data and activity feeds will reflect the decision; also see paragraph [0098]; in combination with the teaching of group chatbox services of Gellis (Fig. 8-11 illustrates the activity feed of member of first group and second group), it reads on as claimed);
and generate a second version of the activity feed for the third user, in which the one or more activities are displayed (paragraph [0089], the mapping information stored at the server library is useful in determining whether and how much of the activity data can be surface to a user account; the amount of detail content management system presents to a user of content management system may depend on what level of access a corresponding user account at third-party service has; certain activity information obtained about activities at third-party services may be made available to only certain users; also see Fig. 2A-B, paragraph [0092], first user’s TPS-account 206 has access permissions to second container access permission 216B and therefore, second container access permission 222B allows for full access permission for the first user’s account with respect to activities at second container 216B but only limit access permissions for second user’s account 210 since there is no user account with access permissions to second container 216B at first third-party service 202A that is associated with second user’s account 210; also see Fig. 3A and Fig. 4, paragraph [0094]; client activity feed service 136 may receive (302) a notification for an activity associated with a content item on third-party service 202 wherein the content item may be managed by content management system 110 and accessible by a user; activity feed service 136 may then identify (304) permissions granted to the user on third-party service 202, the user being one whom for the activity feed is to be displayed, and based on the activity information and permissions granted to the user on third-party service 202, determine (306) whether to include an activity notification about the activity (e.g., activity notification 406A) within activity feed interface 414 (see FIG. 4); noted, as activity feed based on user permission, thus, for example, if users are restricted certain activity data [certain users might have full access to activity data], then activity feeds will reflect the decision).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include determining that a first permission, assigned to the first user, indicates that the first user is not permitted to view one or more activities; generating a first version of an activity feed for the first user by removing the one or more activities performed by one or more other members of the group chat; and generating a second version of the activity feed for the third user, in which the one or more activities are displayed into profiles matching of Gellis.
Motivation to do so would be to include determining that a first permission, assigned to the first user, indicates that the first user is not permitted to view one or more activities; generating a first version of an activity feed for the first user by removing the one or more activities performed by one or more other members of the group chat; and generating a second version of the activity feed for the third user, in which the one or more activities are displayed to provides advantages of utilizing the best service available for the specific type of interactions but has the disadvantage of having to separately log in to all of these services in order to interact with team members (Phan, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 22, Gellis as modified by Phan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 21, further teach: receiving a selection of an icon on the second user profile associated with the second user from a second user device associated with the first user (Gellis, Fig. 18 illustrates the selection of icon on the users).
Regarding claim 23, Gellis as modified by Phan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 21, further teach: wherein creating the first group is in response to: receiving a request to create the first group from a second user device associated with the first user (Gellis, Fig. 12, paragraph [0108], an online community which is organized as groups of individuals, which is coupled to a mechanism whereby an individual user can create and/or join and become a member of one or more groups, of which the online community couples two or more groups; also see paragraph [0065], each group may comprise or otherwise be associated with its own group profile; a group may comprise or otherwise be associated with one or more members’ individual profiles).
Regarding claim 24, Gellis as modified by Phan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 21, further teach: wherein in response to the first group being created, the first group acts as a unit (Gellis, Fig. 12-19, paragraph [0073], this information is then transmitted, in a format configured for displayed at the mobile device, to the mobile device, thereby representing the second group as candidate for matching; also see paragraph [0074]-[0075], receiving an indication of a type of feedback input at the first mobile device; noted, as user of group, for example, Justene and/or Allison of group “Justene and Allison” to provide feedback input at the Justene and/or Allison’s device, which is an indication the input of either Justene or Allision is represented as a group, which reads on as claimed).
Regarding claim 25, Gellis as modified by Phan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 21, further teach: wherein the indication of the first group comprises an icon for the first group (Gellis, Fig. 19 illustrates the icon for group comprising Justene and Allison).
Regarding claim 27, Gellis as modified by Phan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 21, further teach: wherein enabling communication between the first group and the second group in the group chat is further in response: transmitting, using the interface, an indication of the second group to a second user device associated with the first user (Gellis, paragraph [0073], this information is then transmitted, in a format configured for displayed at the mobile device, to the mobile device, thereby representing the second group as candidate for matching; also see paragraph [0074]-[0075], receiving an indication of a type of feedback input at the first mobile device; also see paragraph [0077], in an instance of a second type of feedback (e.g., positive), the matching service may be configured for facilitating an interaction with the second group); and receiving, using the interface, a selection of the second group by the first user from the second user device (paragraph [0073], this information is then transmitted, in a format configured for displayed at the mobile device, to the mobile device, thereby representing the second group as candidate for matching; also see paragraph [0074]-[0075], receiving an indication of a type of feedback input at the first mobile device; also see paragraph [0077], in an instance of a second type of feedback (e.g., positive), the matching service may be configured for facilitating an interaction with the second group).
Regarding claim 28, Gellis as modified by Phan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 21, further teach: wherein the hardware processor is further configured to: generate a graphical user interface that displays the first group, wherein within the graphical user interface, the first user profile is represented by a first graphical element, the second user profile is represented by a second graphical element, and the indication is represented by a third graphical element (Gellis, Fig. 19 illustrates the graphical elements representing first user profile [Justene], second user profile [Allison], and indication of group “Justene and Allison”).
Regarding claim 29, Gellis as modified by Phan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 21, further teach: wherein the hardware processor is further configured to: generate a graphical user interface that displays the group chat in an activity feed, wherein the activity feed displays a set of actions performed by each member of the first group and each member of the second group, and user profiles associated members of the first group and the second group (Gellis, Fig. 8-11 illustrates the activity feed of member of first group and second group).
Regarding claim 30, Gellis as modified by Phan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 29, further teach: wherein the graphical user interface representing the activity feed is updated as new incoming messages are exchanged between any member of the first group and the third user from the second group (Gellis, Fig. 8-11 illustrates the activity feed of member of first group and second group, and the message is shown continuing update as new message is coming in).
As per claim 31-35, this claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the arguments given above for rejected claim 21-25 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 37-40, this claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the arguments given above for rejected claim 27-30 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 26 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gellis et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0046439 A1) in view of Phan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0160201 A1), further in view of Bapat (U.S. Patent No. 9,094,360 B1).
Regarding claim 26, Gellis as modified by Phan teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 21, but do not explicitly disclose: wherein the first user is assigned a permission by the second user to act on behalf of the first group.
Bapat teaches: wherein the first user is assigned a permission by the second user to act on behalf of the first group (responsive to the user authorizing one or more other users the access right to act on behalf of the user, updating an account setting for the user, col. 5, line 59-64 and col. 6, line 1-3; the storage stores account data associated with one or more users, for example, the account data describes one or more account settings, in some instances, an account settings for user can include an authorization setting enabling one or more other users to act on behalf of the user, col. 8, line 45-50; the access right to act on behalf as to comment on post on behalf of the first user, the access right to act on behalf as to publish a new post or message on behalf of the first user, col. 14, line 35-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein the first user is assigned a permission by the second user to act on behalf of the first group into profiles matching of Gellis.
Motivation to do so would be to include wherein the first user is assigned a permission by the second user to act on behalf of the first group to authorize each other certain access rights regarding their social accounts and their social activities with a social network service (Bapat, col. 2, line 33-36).
As per claim 36, this claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the arguments given above for rejected claim 26 and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEN HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached at (571)272-4085. 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.
/KEN HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights