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 .
Status of the Claims
This is in response to a letter for a patent filed 15 April 2025 in which claims 1-10 were presented for examination.
.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDSs) submitted on 15 April 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner. A copy of the PTO-1449 is attached hereto.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 15 April 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1-10 all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1 (additional elements omitted) – Claim 1 recites:
receiving customer orders for a plurality of items to be delivered to a plurality of addresses;
transporting the plurality of items from a retail store to a last mile delivery ("LMD") facility;
storing, at the LMD facility, the plurality of items in an automated inventory buffer system;
determining an optimized LMD shipment plan based on the plurality of addresses, wherein the optimized LMD shipment plan comprises a plurality of assigned routes for a plurality of delivery vehicles to follow to deliver the plurality of items; and
conveying, from the automated inventory buffer system and in accordance with the optimized LMD shipment plan, the plurality of items to an area for loading the plurality of items into the plurality of delivery vehicles. The aforementioned limitations fall within “Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” which includes teaching and following rules or instructions. Therefore, the claim(s) as a whole fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of “an automated inventory buffer” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements, when analyzed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception).
Step 2B - As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when analyzed individually and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
As per Dependent Claims 2-3, 6-8, and 10, the limitations merely narrow the previously recited abstract limitations. Dependent claim 2 recites wherein each assigned route of the plurality of assigned routes is predetermined for a single delivery vehicle to follow to deliver an assigned group of items of the plurality of items. Dependent claim 3 recites wherein the area for loading the plurality of delivery vehicles comprises multiple parking spaces, wherein each parking space of the multiple parking spaces receives one delivery vehicle of the plurality of delivery vehicles. Dependent claim 6 recites wherein each assigned route of the plurality of assigned routes is predetermined based on determining a plurality of geographical areas corresponding to the plurality of addresses. Dependent claim 7 recites wherein each assigned route of the plurality of assigned routes is predetermined on a basis of minimizing a distance traveled by the plurality of delivery vehicles. Dependent claim 8 recites wherein each assigned route of the plurality of assigned routes is predetermined on a basis of balancing distances traveled by each delivery vehicle of the plurality of delivery vehicles. Dependent claim 8 recites wherein each assigned route of the plurality of assigned routes is predetermined on a basis of balancing distances traveled by each delivery vehicle of the plurality of delivery vehicles. Dependent claim 10 recites herein the plurality of delivery vehicles comprises third-party logistic vehicles and non-professional courier vehicles. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 2-3, 6-8, and 10, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent Claim 4, the recitation, “wherein the conveying the plurality of items to the area for loading the plurality of items into the plurality of delivery vehicles comprises, conveying a particular assigned group of items to each parking space of the multiple parking spaces” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not add any additional elements to evaluate at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
As per dependent Claim 5, the recitation, “wherein the conveying the particular assigned group of items to each parking space comprises ‘conveying individual items of the particular assigned group of items in a sequence that is reversed in comparison to a sequence for delivering the individual items in accordance with the optimized LMD shipment plan’” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not add any additional elements to evaluate at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
As per dependent Claim 9, the recitation, “an automatic storage and retrieval system ("ASRS")” is another computer components recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not add any additional elements to evaluate at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent Claims 2-10 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent Claims 2-10, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea of the independent claims. The dependent claims recite no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafrance (US PG Pub. 20200118079 A1) in view of Gravelle et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0271785 A1) and Tripathy et al. (US PG Pub. 20220156680 A1).
As per claim 1, Lafrance et al. discloses a method for preparing direct-to-customer shipments, the method comprising:
receiving customer orders for a plurality of items to be delivered to a plurality of addresses (Lafrance: [0051] For example, as shown in FIG. 3, upon purchasing an item that requires or is desired to include shipping, the customer 16 is presented with an option to select a delivery data and possible one or more delivery time windows. By being integrated with the upstream portions of the supply and delivery network, the SCM system 14 can provide the retail portal with data that allows such delivery dates to be determined); [0069] At step 52, the retailer 21 provides an interface to the customer 16 with a delivery option. For example, when purchasing a large item such as an appliance or furniture, many customers require delivery using a last mile delivery truck. Through coordination with the SCM system 14, the retailer 21 can provide this option to allow the customer 16 to select a delivery date for the order at step 54. Based on this selection, the retailer 21 notifies the SCM system 14 at step 56 of the selected delivery date, such that the SCM 14 can work backwards to ensure that the goods are either delivered from the vendor 10 to the appropriate consolidation center 12 or warehouse 20 or moved within the mid mile portion to efficiently transfer into the last mile leg of the delivery.
[0049]
transporting the plurality of items from a retail store to a last mile delivery ("LMD") facility; (Lafrance: [0045] also coordinating the last-mile deliveries from the retailers (or consolidation centers) directly to the consumers 16).
Lafrance does not explicitly disclose, however, Gravelle et al. discloses:
storing, at the LMD facility, the plurality of items in an automated inventory buffer system (Gravelle et al.: [0089] The last mile sort area 216 comprises storage racking integrated into or added adjacently onto the ASRS structure 208 for storing larger multi-order shipment-consolidation containers, for example, pallet boxes or gaylords, into which packaged orders from the packing area 210 are autonomously compiled for later consolidated pickup by the outbound transport service or carrier vehicles 214 at the outbound shipping docks 215b of the facility);
conveying, from the automated inventory buffer system and in accordance with the optimized LMD shipment plan, the plurality of items to an area for loading the plurality of items into the plurality of delivery vehicles (Gravelle et al.: [0014] stored in cases from manufacturers as input and outputs customer orders in parcels on pallets sorted by location, for example, by zip code or postal code, and picked up by carriers. The order fulfillment system disclosed herein allows transport of storage bins between the different service areas in any order and sequence instead of linearly with conveyors. Moreover, the order fulfillment system disclosed herein allows performance of fulfillment tasks multiple times. Furthermore, the order fulfillment system disclosed herein allows buffering of storage bins in the ASRS structure between each process performed at the different service areas); (Gravelle et al.: [0020] The last mile sort area comprises at least one row of the storage racking running along the outer perimeter thereof. In an embodiment, the robotic package-handling vehicle is a conveyor-equipped robotic vehicle comprising a wheeled chassis and a conveyor unit mounted atop the wheeled chassis. The wheeled chassis is operable to perform locomotion of the robotic package-handling vehicle through the ASRS structure. The conveyor unit is operable to receive the packaged orders and offload the packaged orders to the shipment-consolidation containers) . The last mile sort area 216 comprises storage racking integrated into or added adjacently onto the ASRS structure 208 for storing larger multi-order shipment-consolidation containers, for example, pallet boxes or gaylords, into which packaged orders from the packing area 210 are autonomously compiled for later consolidated pickup by the outbound transport service or carrier vehicles 214 at the outbound shipping docks 215b of the facility); also see [0158]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lafrance et al. to include the conveying, from the automated inventory buffer system to an area for loading as taught by Gravelle et al. to provide automation to offload the packaged orders to the shipment-consolidation containers and then for pickup by the outbound transport service or carrier vehicles at the outbound shipping docks of the facility (Gravelle et al.: [0020]);
Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Tripathy discloses:
determining an optimized LMD shipment plan based on the plurality of addresses, wherein the optimized LMD shipment plan comprises a plurality of assigned routes for a plurality of delivery vehicles to follow to deliver the plurality of items (Tripathy et al.: [0022] The embodiments assign drivers to delivery routes based on each driver's familiarity with a geographical area. For example, for more efficient execution of last-mile purchase order deliveries, having a same driver deliver purchase orders to a same geographical area will tend to be more efficient. For example, assuming there are multiple deliveries that need to be made within a gated apartment with 100 homes on a daily basis, it is advantageous to have the same driver(s) make those deliveries, such as to reduce delivery times. For example, the driver's experience with the neighborhood may save time in terms of their familiarity of where to park the delivery vehicle, optimal paths to take to each delivery location, as well as having the customers become more familiar with the drivers that deliver the packages (e.g., which may result in higher customer satisfaction with the deliveries). Further, the same driver may become more familiar with security, elevator, or building access, thereby reducing delivery times to some delivery locations, such as difficult-to-locate building units). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al.’s buffer system to include the optimized shipment plan as taught by Tripathy et al. in order to have the same driver(s) make those deliveries, such as to reduce delivery times (Tripathy et al.: [0022]).
As per claim 2, Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al. and Tripathy et al. discloses the method of claim 1. Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Tripathy et al. discloses, wherein each assigned route of the plurality of assigned routes is predetermined for a single delivery vehicle to follow to deliver an assigned group of items of the plurality of items (Tripathy et al.: [0022]. For example, for more efficient execution of last-mile purchase order deliveries, having a same driver deliver purchase orders to a same geographical area will tend to be more efficient. For example, assuming there are multiple deliveries that need to be made within a gated apartment with 100 homes on a daily basis, it is advantageous to have the same driver(s) make those deliveries, such as to reduce delivery times). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al.’s buffer system to include assigning a single delivery driver as taught by Tripathy et al. in order to provide more efficient deliveries (Tripathy et al.: [0022]).
As per claim 6, Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al. and Tripathy et al. discloses the method of claim 2. Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Tripathy et al. discloses, discloses the method of claim 2, wherein each assigned route of the plurality of assigned routes is predetermined based on determining a plurality of geographical areas corresponding to the plurality of addresses (Tripathy et al.: [0022] The embodiments assign drivers to delivery routes based on each driver's familiarity with a geographical area. For example, for more efficient execution of last-mile purchase order deliveries, having a same driver deliver purchase orders to a same geographical area will tend to be more efficient. For example, assuming there are multiple deliveries that need to be made within a gated apartment with 100 homes on a daily basis, it is advantageous to have the same driver(s) make those deliveries, such as to reduce delivery times).
As per claim 9, Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al. and Tripathy et al. discloses the method of claim 1. Lafrance in view of Tripathy et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Gravelle et al. discloses, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the automated inventory buffer system comprises an automatic storage and retrieval system ("ASRS") (Gravelle et al.: [0079] The latter storage bins into which the processed items are placed are herein referred to as “inventory storage bins” to distinguish these storage bins from the unprocessed storage bins, since the items placed in these inventory storage bins have been confirmed as, or transformed into, saleable inventory-ready product through the VAS processing or returns-inspection actions or tasks performed on the items. In an embodiment, the inventory storage bins are stored in the ASRS structure 208 prior to performance of any downstream operations, thereby implementing buffering of storage bins 403 in the ASRS structure 208 between each process performed at the different service areas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lafrance et al. to include the ASRS as an automated inventory buffer system as taught by Gravelle et al. in order to provide automation to offload the packaged orders to the shipment-consolidation containers and then for pickup by the outbound transport service or carrier vehicles at the outbound shipping docks of the facility (Gravelle et al.: [0020]);
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafrance (US PG Pub. 20200118079 A1) in view of Gravelle et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0271785 A1) and Tripathy et al. (US PG Pub. 20220156680 A1) as applied to claim 2 above and in further view of Mains, Jr. et al. (US PG Pub. 20210334736 A1).
As per claim 3, Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al. and Tripathy et al. discloses the method of claim 2. Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al. and Tripathy et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Mains, Jr. et al. discloses wherein the area for loading the plurality of delivery vehicles comprises multiple parking spaces, wherein each parking space of the multiple parking spaces receives one delivery vehicle of the plurality of delivery vehicles (Mains, Jr. et al.: [FIG. 11 shows a dock is assigned). {The Examiner interprets the dock to be equivalent to a parking space}. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al.’s buffer system in view of Tripathy et al.’s optimized shipment plan to include one vehicle per parking space as taught by Mains, Jr. et al. in order to limit the type of inventory that may be unloaded or loaded into a specific dock to maximize efficiency when picking, packing, and staging outbound goods and/or putting away inbound goods (Mains, Jr. et al.: [0123]).
As per claim 4, Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al. in view of Tripathy et al. and (discloses the method of claim 3. Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al. in view of Tripathy et al. does not further disclose, however, Mains, Jr. et al. discloses:
wherein the conveying the plurality of items to the area for loading the plurality of items into the plurality of delivery vehicles comprises, conveying a particular assigned group of items to each parking space of the multiple parking spaces (Mains, Jr. et al.: [0123] Dock availability may be limited according to types of goods that may be loaded and unloaded. Docks may be designated for delivery of specific types of goods, such as frozen goods, commodities, bulk shipments, etc. Dock availability may also be limited depending on whether the dock has been assigned to a specific customer, carrier, or transportation lane. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al.’s buffer system in view of Tripathy et al.’s optimized shipment plan to include assigning particular items to each parking space as taught by Mains, Jr. et al. in order to limit the type of inventory that may be unloaded or loaded into a specific dock to maximize efficiency when picking, packing, and staging outbound goods and/or putting away inbound goods (Mains, Jr. et al.: [0123]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafrance (US PG Pub. 20200118079 A1) in view of Gravelle et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0271785 A1) in view of Tripathy et al. (US PG Pub. 20220156680 A1) and Mains, Jr. et al. (US PG Pub. 20210334736 A1) as applied to claim 4 above and in further view of Vitalini (US PG Pub. 20180057271 A1)
As per claim 4, Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al. in view of Tripathy et al. and Mains, Jr. et al. discloses the method of claim 4. Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al. in view of Tripathy et al. and Mains, Jr. et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Vitalini discloses wherein the conveying the particular assigned group of items to each parking space comprises conveying individual items of the particular assigned group of items in a sequence that is reversed in comparison to a sequence for delivering the individual items in accordance with the optimized LMD shipment plan (Vitalini: [Abstract). A conveying route includes segments that are arranged one behind the other along the main conveying direction. The segments have conveyors arranged parallel to one another and the segments are offset relative to one another in a transverse direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al.’s buffer system in view of Tripathy et al.’s optimized shipment plan and Main, Jr. et al. include reversed sequences as taught by Vitalini for efficient deliveries.
Claims 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafrance (US PG Pub. 20200118079 A1) in view of Gravelle et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0271785 A1) and Tripathy et al. (US PG Pub. 20220156680 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above and in further view of Official Notice.
As per claim 7, Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al. in view of Tripathy et al. discloses the method of claim 6. Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al. in view of Tripathy et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein each assigned route of the plurality of assigned routes is predetermined on a basis of minimizing a distance traveled by the plurality of delivery vehicles however, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known to plan delivery routes based on minimizing distance to minimize cost and provide efficiency in deliveries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al.’s buffer system in view of Tripathy et al.’s optimized shipment plan to include assigned routes on a basis of minimizing distances traveled by delivery vehicles to provide efficient deliveries based on shortest distances driven by available delivery vehicles since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 8, Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al. in view of Tripathy et al. discloses the method of claim 6. Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al. in view of Tripathy et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein each assigned route of the plurality of assigned routes is predetermined on a basis of balancing distances traveled by each delivery vehicle of the plurality of delivery vehicles. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known to plan delivery routes based on balancing distance driven by delivery drivers to provide efficient and timely deliveries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al.’s buffer system in view of Tripathy et al.’s optimized shipment plan to include assigned routes on a basis of balancing distances traveled by delivery vehicles to provide efficient deliveries based on an equal distances driven by available delivery vehicles since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 10, Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al. in view of Tripathy et al. discloses the method of claim 1. Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al. in view of Tripathy et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of delivery vehicles comprises third-party logistic vehicles and non-professional courier vehicles. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known that well that third-party logistic vehicles and non-professional courier vehicles are hired to complete last mile/last leg deliveries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lafrance in view of Gravelle et al.’s buffer system in view of Tripathy et al.’s optimized shipment plan to include third-party logistic vehicles and non-professional courier vehicles as delivery vehicles to provide efficient deliveries based on a variety of available delivery vehicles since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Haggerty, Maria, “3 Ways to Perfect Last-Mile Delivery in 2021”, June 4, 2021, inc.com, 5 pages discloses that the crux of last-mile logistics is to deliver items to the end-user as quickly as possible, and one way businesses are accommodating this strategy is by turning shuttered stores into regional micro-fulfillment hubs and pairing them with last-mile delivery services to facilitate faster shipping without the premium price tag.
2) Hoffman, Bob, “Using ASRS for order consolidation in retail fulfillment”, 28 September 2021, swisslog.com, 5 pages discloses that the retail order fulfillment landscape has changed dramatically in the last several years and the challenges of consolidating orders to meet customer pickup requirements have led more organizations to consider adding a buffer system to last-mile fulfillment centers such as ASRS systems that enable goods-to-person picking.
3) Langen et al. (CA 3119942 C) discloses a multi-nodal supply chain system and method for supply chain workflow execution using transportable and continuously trackable storage bins by storing bin identifiers of the storage bins and location identifiers of the indexed storage locations and dynamic storage locations of the storage bins; and updates the location identifiers as the storage bins are transferred between the node facilities and the INTVs
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDA A. NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/F.A.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights