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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected subcombination, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/17/2026.
Acknowledgements
This Office Action addresses the response filed on 02/17/2026.
Claims 15-20 were withdrawn.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claims 1-14 were examined.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to the Eligibility Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo two-part test of the subject matter eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106), in the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a system, and claims 8-14 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. In the instant invention, the claims are not limited by structural elements and actions performed by a machine. The breadth of the process and apparatus claims have does not require a particular machine performing each of the recited steps and/or functions.
Following step 2A, prong one of the analysis, the language of the independent claims reciting an abstract idea are marked in bold below:
a. computing a hash for a node in a graph, the hash being based at least in part on a transaction identifier;b. retrieving transaction information from the node in the graph identified by the hash; andc. inserting a transaction into a list of transactions, the transaction comprising the transaction information retrieved from the node.
Therefore, the portions highlighted in bold above recite performing a mathematical calculation, retrieving and rearranging data, which is an abstract idea grouped within the mathematical concepts and mental processes grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A. The claims are grouped within mathematical concepts because the steps recited describe computing a hash, which represents a mathematical calculation. Additionally, the claims are also grouped within mental processes because the steps recited describe collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, which is a concept that can be performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. In situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(II). Thus, the language identified in the mathematical concepts and mental processes groupings were considered as a single abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2A, prong two of the analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, method claim 8 does not recite additional elements. With respect to system claim 1, the claims recite using a computing device, processor and memory to perform the recited function. These additional elements performs the steps or functions such as: “computing a hash...”, “retrieving… information…”, “inserting… transaction into a list…”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which only serves to use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they require no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, following the analysis of step 2A, prong two, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B of the analysis, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 8 does not recite additional elements. In claim 1, the additional computer elements, such as computing device, processor and memory. The computing device, processor and memory perform the steps/functions of “computing a hash...”, “retrieving… information…”, “inserting… transaction into a list…”, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea of performing a mathematical calculation, retrieving and rearranging data. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of performing a mathematical calculation, retrieving and rearranging data. Therefore, the independent claims are not eligible.
Examiner notes that, for elements recited in the dependent claims which were previously analyzed as additional elements of the independent claims above (i.e. computing device, processor and memory in claim 1), the assessment of these elements under step 2A and step 2B for the dependent claims is inherited from the analysis of the independent claims and omitted for brevity, unless noted by Examiner below. Dependent claims 1-7 and 9-14 further recite the following additional language, in which elements which merely further define the identified abstract idea are marked in bold below:
d) wherein the node is a first node and the method further comprises: identifying a second node in the graph that is linked to the first node; retrieving additional transaction information from the second node; and the transaction inserted into the list of transactions further comprises the additional transaction information retrieved from the second node. e) further comprising preparing a transaction statement that comprises the list of transactions and the transaction information from the node in the graph identified by the hash. f) wherein the graph is stored in a distributed ledger. g) wherein retrieving transaction information from the node in the graph identified by the hash further comprises: providing the hash of the node to a distributed agent executed by the distributed ledger; and receiving the transaction information from the distributed agent in response. h) further comprising decrypting the transaction information in response to retrieving transaction information from the node in the graph identified by the hash. i) wherein the hash is further based at least in part on an account number associated with the transaction identifier.
With respect to claims 2 and 9, the claims include language directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the transaction inserted "comprises". Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. Further, the claims recite item d) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of identifying a second node, retrieving additional data. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of performing a mathematical calculation, retrieving and rearranging data identified in the analysis of independent claims 1 and 8. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claims 3 and 10, the claims include language directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what a transaction statement "comprises". Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. Further, the claims recite item e) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of preparing a statement. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of performing a mathematical calculation, retrieving and rearranging data identified in the analysis of independent claims 1 and 8. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claims 4 and 11, the claims include language which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the graph "is". Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of performing a mathematical calculation, retrieving and rearranging data identified in the analysis of independent claims 1 and 8. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claims 5 and 12, the claims recite item g) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of providing a hash to an agent and receiving transaction information. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of performing a mathematical calculation, retrieving and rearranging data identified in the analysis of independent claims 1 and 8. The claims introduce the additional element of interacting with a “distributed agent executed by the distributed ledger”. However, these elements merely serve to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claims 6 and 13, the claims recite item h) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of decrypting information. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of performing a mathematical calculation, retrieving and rearranging data identified in the analysis of independent claims 1 and 8. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claims 7 and 14, the claims include language which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the hash is "based" on. Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of performing a mathematical calculation, retrieving and rearranging data identified in the analysis of independent claims 1 and 8. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because no further additional elements/functions are introduced to the BRI of the claims.
Therefore, while the additional language d) - i) of dependent claims 2-7, and 9-14 slightly modify the analysis provided with respect to independent claims 1 and 8, these additional elements/functions are insufficient to render the dependent claims eligible, as detailed above. Therefore, these dependent claims are also ineligible.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rush et al. (US 2019/0079998 A1), hereinafter Rush, in view of Dobrek et al. (US 10,320,843 B1), hereinafter Dobrek.
With respect to claims 1 and 8, Rush teaches a system, comprising: a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory; and a method (Blockchain data-processing engine) comprising:
computing a hash for [an account of interest in a blockchain], the hash being based at least in part on a transaction identifier (see Bloom filter, paragraph [0063]: “…the accounts database 160 uses a space-efficient probabilistic data structure such as a bloom filter to represent the accounts in the blockchain 110. Bloom filters are described in Burton H. Bloom, “Space/Time Trade-offs in Hash Coding with Allowable Errors,”… incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.”; paragraph [0064]: “…the bloom filters in the accounts database 160 are based on the Sha256 hash function described in the Yellow Paper... when applied to a specified 20-byte account ID number, the hash function generates a 2048-bit hash output value in which one, two, or three bits are set to 1, with the remaining bits all set to 0. The one, two, or three specific bits that are set to 1 are likely to be, but do not have to be, different for two different account ID numbers. A bloom filter for the accounts database 160 is generated by applying the hash function to a specified set of different account ID numbers and bitwise logically ORing the corresponding 2048-bit hash outputs together. The resulting 2048-bit bloom filter will have some of its bits set to 1 and the rest set to 0....”; and paragraph [0065]: “To determine whether a particular account ID number might be a member of the set of account ID numbers used to generate a particular bloom filter, the same hash function is applied to the particular account ID number to generate a corresponding 2048-bit hash output having one, two, or three bits set to 1. The hash output is then bitwise ANDed with the bloom filter that represents the set of account ID numbers, and, if the result is non-zero, then the particular account ID number may be a member of the set of accounts ID numbers used to generate the bloom filter...");
retrieving transaction information from the [account of interest in a blockchain] identified by the hash (see positive results, paragraph [0070]: “When a particular account ID number is applied to a particular bloom filter in the accounts database 160, the bloom filter generates either a positive result or a negative result… a positive result indicates that the portion of the blockchain 110 represented by that bloom filter might or might not contain data for the identified account.”; paragraph [0077]: “In step 406, the BDP engine 120 identifies the account ID number for the next account involved in a transaction in the block 114. As suggested previously, the BDP engine 120 can identify accounts by parsing the block 114 to identify each transaction in the block and, for each transaction, the BDP engine 120 can follow the trace of the transaction..."); and
inserting a transaction into a list of transactions, the transaction comprising the transaction information retrieved from the [account of interest in a blockchain] (see blocks database 170, paragraph [0040]: “…at every block 114, the BDP engine 120 updates (i) the accounts database 160 for any accounts having one or more transactions in the block, (ii) the transaction-location database 150 for each transaction in the block associated with any of the AOIs 122, and (iii) possibly the blocks database 170.”; paragraph [0041]: “In some implementations (for example, if the BDP engine 120 is to support large-scale, blockchain-wide data analysis), the BDP engine 120 stores an optimized, binary version 116 of each block 114 in the blocks database 170. In that case, if the BDP engine 120 needs data that is included in the optimized data in the blocks database 170, then the BDP engine 120 can retrieve that data from the blocks database 170 without having to go back to the blockchain 110. As such, the BDP engine 120 may never need to process any block 114 more than once.”; paragraph [0092]: “As mentioned in the previous section, the BDP engine 120 can be configured to store, in the blocks database 170, an optimized, binary version 116 of each block 114 in the blockchain 110. In that case, the BDP engine 120 can be further configured to support data analysis at the entire blockchain level that can be faster than would be available by having to directly access the blockchain 110 itself. Depending on what specific data is stored in the blocks database 170, this blockchain-level data analysis can take into account blocks, transactions, receipts, logs, and/or traces. Such blockchain-level data analysis can extend to portions of the blockchain data larger than single contracts such as industry-wide segmentations of the data (to the extent it is possible to cleanly categorize such things) and to system-wide, all-inclusive analyses such as ‘gas’ usage, smart contract deployment costs, asset pricing, comparative usage analysis between multiple smart contracts, system monitoring, and per-block accounting/auditing.”).
Rush does not explicitly disclose a system and method comprising: the account of interest in the blockchain is a node in a graph in a blockchain.
However, Dobrek discloses a system and method (Methods, systems, and devices for encrypted electronic storage and confidential network transfer of private data through a trustless distributed ledger technology system) comprising:
the account of interest in the blockchain is a node in a graph in a blockchain (see col. 31 lines 24-33: “In some embodiments, a transaction inserts a new vertex in the graph. In some embodiments, a special type of transaction (e.g., “new” transaction) can create a new vertex with no edges. It can initialize an empty state and create a write path of one vertex. As an illustrative example, consider adding a new account, say account C, to an existing distributed ledger. The addition of new account C can be a special type of transaction that creates a vertex for account C with an empty state. The changes to the balance of account C (i.e., crediting and/or debiting account C) can create a write path.”; Examiner notes the "node" in the blockchain is understood as nodes in a decentralized distributed networked, while "nodes" in a graph are interpreted as the vertex created for an account - see col. 31 lines 24-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the tracking state changes of data objects in the distributed ledger in a dependency graph as disclosed by Dobrek in the system and method of Rush, the motivation being to allow each node to independently execute transactions to verify that the outputs are correct and consistent amongst all the nodes within a group (see Dobrek, col. 30 lines 27-33).
With respect to claims 2 and 9, the combination of Rush and Dobrek teaches all the subject matter of the system and method as described above with respect to claims 1 and 8. Furthermore, Rush disclose a system and method wherein the node is a first node and the method further comprises:
identifying a second node in the graph that is linked to the first node (see new account of interest, paragraph [0045]: “As described further below, when a new AOI 122 gets added to the list of accounts to be handled by the BDP engine 120, the BDP engine 120 needs to generate a transaction-location list for that new AOI 122. To do that, the BDP engine 120 needs access to all of the transactions for that new AOI 122 in the blockchain 110. If any of those transactions are represented in the optimized, binary blocks 116 currently stored in the blocks database 170, then the BDP engine 120 retrieves those transactions from the blocks database 170...”; see also paragraph [0064]);
retrieving additional transaction information from the second node (see data retrieval, paragraph [0045]: “If any of those transactions are not represented in the blocks database 170, then the BDP engine 120 has to retrieve the corresponding blocks 114 from the blockchain 110…"); and
the transaction inserted into the list of transactions further comprises the additional transaction information retrieved from the second node (see information added to database 170, paragraph [0045]: "Note that, in that case, the BDP engine 120 will then store an optimized, binary version 116 of each such retrieved block 114 in the blocks database 170."). The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 3 and 10, the combination of Rush and Dobrek teaches all the subject matter of the system and method as described above with respect to claims 1 and 8. Furthermore, Rush disclose a system and method further comprising preparing a transaction statement that comprises the list of transactions and the transaction information from the node in the graph identified by the hash (see paragraph [0050]: “Among many other functions, the BDP engine 120 is capable of generating reports 128 for one or more accounts of interest (AOIs) 122, which represent a subset of all of the different accounts having data in the Ethereum blockchain 110. The AOIs 122 may represent the accounts specific to one or more individuals and/or one or more businesses that have purchased the BDP engine 120 or BDP engine services. Depending on the particular implementation, the reports 128 may include account statements covering transactions covering specific periods (e.g., year-to-date, last year, last month, or last week, or custom start and end) or filtered to include certain subsets of transaction types (e.g., deposits, withdrawals, gas) or summaries (e.g., balance by account, balance by transaction type).”; see also Fig. 2, paragraph [0021]: “FIG. 2 is a flow diagram of the processing performed by the BDP engine of FIG. 1 to generate a report for a specified account of interest (AOI) in response to a received report request;”). The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 4 and 11, the combination of Rush and Dobrek teaches all the subject matter of the system and method as described above with respect to claims 1 and 8. Furthermore, Dobrek disclose a system and method wherein the graph is stored in a distributed ledger (see col. 15 lines 10-14: “In some embodiments, one or more encrypted transactions can be broadcasted to all nodes on a distributed ledger system or network. These encrypted transactions can be written/stored on the distributed log by each and every node on the distributed ledger in some embodiments”; Fig. 6 col. 32, lines 1-4: "In the illustrated example, the graph maintains the full history of all state changes in the system. It is a persistent data structure that captures every state change at every point in time.”). The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 5 and 12, the combination of Rush and Dobrek teaches all the subject matter of the system and method as described above with respect to claims 1 and 8. Furthermore, Rush disclose a system and method wherein retrieving transaction information from the node in the graph identified by the hash further comprises:
providing the hash of the node to a distributed agent executed by the distributed ledger (see retrieving information in parallel by multiple data-procesing sub-engines, Fig. 2, step 208, paragraph [0055]: "...this bottleneck may be relieved by requesting these BOIs from multiple, independent copies of the blocks database 170 and/or from multiple, independent copies of the blockchain 110 in parallel. These independent copies may be accessed from distinct local and remote trusted nodes, from distinct trusted servers, from a high-performance raid-like service from a node with internal duplication of the blocks database and/or the blockchain for multiported non-contentious service of simultaneous block requests, or from a decentralized file system such as an implementation of an interplanetary file system (IPFS) or equivalent.”); and
receiving the transaction information from the distributed agent in response (see gathering transaction data, FIg. 2, step 208, paragraph [0056]: “In one possible implementation, as the BDP engine 120 gathers the transaction data in step 208, the BDP engine 120 calculates a running balance for the AOI and compares that running balance to the running balances recorded in the blockchain 110. This processing provides a check on the operation of the BDP engine 120 and/or a check on the validity of the smart contract operations within the transactions in the blockchain 110.” The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims. Examiner notes claims 5 and 12 could be also rendered obvious by the teachings of Dobrek, crypto proxy 106, col. 13 lines 20-35.
With respect to claims 6 and 13, the combination of Rush and Dobrek teaches all the subject matter of the system and method as described above with respect to claims 1 and 8. Furthermore, Dobrek disclose a system and method further comprising decrypting the transaction information in response to retrieving transaction information from the node in the graph identified by the hash (see at least col. 32 lines 51-67: “...A write path encrypted with a null key can be accessed, processed, and decrypted by every node within the network…"). The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 7 and 14, the combination of Rush and Dobrek teaches all the subject matter of the system and method as described above with respect to claims 1 and 8. Furthermore, Rush disclose a system and method wherein the hash is further based at least in part on an account number associated with the transaction identifier (see paragraph [0064]: “In one possible implementation, the bloom filters in the accounts database 160 are based on the Sha256 hash function described in the Yellow Paper. According to this implementation, when applied to a specified 20-byte account ID number, the hash function generates a 2048-bit hash output value in which one, two, or three bits are set to 1, with the remaining bits all set to 0. The one, two, or three specific bits that are set to 1 are likely to be, but do not have to be, different for two different account ID numbers. A bloom filter for the accounts database 160 is generated by applying the hash function to a specified set of different account ID numbers and bitwise logically ORing the corresponding 2048-bit hash outputs together. The resulting 2048-bit bloom filter will have some of its bits set to 1 and the rest set to 0. Typically, larger sets of account ID numbers result in more bits of the bloom filter being set to 1”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Patent Literature
Brunel et al. (US 2018/0018375 A1) disclose hierarchical window database query execution, including obtaining results responsive to a query by accumulating data from rows across edges of a directed acyclic graph. Data can then be provided that includes at least a portion of the obtained results.
Jois (US 2020/0394183 A1) discloses system and method of executing, confirming and storing a transaction in a serverless decentralized node network, including Blockchain and DAG DLT platforms trade decentralization to reduce latency and promote reliability and security.
Baird, Iii (US 9,646,029 B1) discloses methods and apparatus for a distributed database within a network, including a DAG based on cryptographic hashes, so the data structure can be called a hashDAG.
Fields et al. (US 11,025,409 B1) disclose systems and methods for generating a blockchain-based user profile, including identifying one or more blockchain transactions associated with one or more blockchain IDs, where a trust profile for the user can be generated based on the one or more blockchain transactions. The trust profile can include user information determined from the one or more blockchain transactions..
Chang et al. (US 2007/0208693 A1) disclose method for representing and searching directed acyclic graph (DAG) structures in databases involves triggering generation of lexical index of path table using text strings and retrieving portions of generalized DAG for in-memory operations, including triggering generation of a lexical index, wherein the lexical index separately lists tokens included in the entries; and retrieving one or more portions of the generalized DAG from a database.
Non-Patent Literature
Nurgaliev et al. "Enabling Blockchain for Efficient Spatio-Temporal Query Processing," In: Hacid (NPL 2018, listed in PTO-892 as page 1, reference "U") disclose Enabling Blockchain for Efficient Spatio-Temporal Query Processing, including spatio-temporal data processing in a blockchain and propose queries on blockchain without expensive local indexing. A typical transaction has the following attributes: timestamp, longitude, latitude, and hashed account identifier. Thus, we enable blockchain for efficient query processing without the requirement of additional local indexes..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDUARDO D CASTILHO whose telephone number is (571)270-1592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698