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 .
Double Patenting
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,412,215 B2.
The judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is intended to prevent an unjustified or improper timewise extension of patent rights by prohibiting claims in a commonly owned application that are not patentably distinct from claims of a commonly owned patent.
The instant application and U.S. Patent No. 12,412,215 B2 are commonly owned. Accordingly, the patented claims are compared with the presently pending claims to determine whether the Current Claims define a patentably distinct invention.
The claims are not patentably distinct for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 1
Current claim 1 is rejected as being unpatentable over patented claim 1.
Patented claim 1 recites a method for reducing computing load on a POS device including: authorizing, by a computer server communicating with the POS device, a first financial transaction initiated at the POS device; posting the transaction to a source account; calculating a savings amount by rounding the transaction amount to a nearest whole monetary amount; determining an aggregate savings amount from savings associated with multiple transactions; determining that the aggregate savings amount is available in the source account before debiting; determining that the aggregate savings amount has reached a predetermined threshold; sending a notification to an associated mobile device including a signal activating a motor to cause vibration; receiving from the mobile device a selective distribution message containing selection information identifying recipient accounts; and separating and distributing the selective distribution message into multiple messages transmitted to multiple banking servers to cause transfers to the recipient accounts while distributing processing load among the banking servers.
Patented claim 1 additionally specifies reducing POS computing load by deferring calculation of the savings amount to the computer server and reducing server computing load by postponing debiting until the threshold has been reached. The patented claim set expressly contains these limitations.
Current claim 1 recites substantially the same claimed combination but omits the separate availability determination and does not expressly incorporate all of the additional computing-load language appearing in patented claim 1.
These omissions do not render Current claim 1 patentably distinct. Rather, Current claim 1 broadly claims substantially the same automatic round-up savings and selective distribution process while omitting restrictions imposed by patented claim 1. The claimed authorization, posting, round-up calculation, aggregation, threshold determination, mobile notification, recipient selection, message separation, account transfer, and distributed banking-server processing remain substantially the same.
It would have been obvious to practice the subject matter of patented claim 1 without separately performing the additional availability verification and/or without expressly requiring the particular load-reduction restrictions because doing so merely eliminates restrictions from the patented combination while retaining the same fundamental transaction-processing architecture and functionality.
Accordingly, Current claim 1 is an obvious variation of, and is not patentably distinct from, patented claim 1.
Claims 2–10
Claim 2 further requires the notification to be a selective distribution message type comprising a unique packet containing fields relating to message identification, source accounts, recipient accounts, savings amounts, dates, and savings selections. Patented claim 2 recites the same subject matter. Accordingly, Current claim 2 is not patentably distinct from patented claims 1–2.
Claim 3 requires encrypting the selection information before transmission over a network. Patented claim 3 recites the same limitation. Current claim 3 is therefore not patentably distinct from patented claims 1 and 3.
Claim 4 specifies that the mobile device is a smartphone. Patented claim 4 recites the same limitation. Current claim 4 is therefore not patentably distinct from patented claims 1 and 4.
Claim 5 requires the notification to comprise a text message to the mobile device. Patented claim 5 recites the same limitation. Current claim 5 is therefore not patentably distinct from patented claims 1 and 5.
Claim 6 specifies that the predetermined threshold is a fixed amount of funds. Patented claim 6 recites the same limitation. Current claim 6 is therefore not patentably distinct from patented claims 1 and 6.
Claim 7 specifies that the predetermined threshold is a percentage of funds of a user-selected goal. Patented claim 7 recites the same limitation. Current claim 7 is therefore not patentably distinct from patented claims 1 and 7.
Claim 8 specifies that the predetermined threshold is aggregate savings over a given time period. Patented claim 8 recites the same limitation. Current claim 8 is therefore not patentably distinct from patented claims 1 and 8.
Claim 9 requires the interface to comprise a touchscreen display. Patented claim 9 recites the same limitation.
Claim 10 further requires touchscreen elements identifying recipient accounts. Patented claim 10 recites the corresponding limitation.
Thus, Current claims 2–10 merely recite limitations already expressly claimed in the corresponding dependent claims of the commonly owned patent and do not impart patentable distinctness.
Independent Claim 11
Current claim 11 is rejected as being unpatentable over patented claim 11.
Patented claim 11 recites a system comprising a POS device configured to conduct a financial transaction, a computer server communicating with the POS device, and a wireless device communicating with the computer server. The server includes memory storing processor-executable instructions for performing substantially the same transaction authorization, posting, round-up savings calculation, aggregation, threshold determination, vibration notification, recipient-account selection, selective distribution messaging, multi-bank transfer, and distributed-processing operations recited by Current claim 11. The patented system claim expressly includes these server operations.
The principal difference is that patented claim 11 additionally requires determining that the aggregate savings amount is available in the source account before debiting.
Current claim 11 therefore represents a broader version of substantially the same claimed system. Omitting the additional availability-verification restriction does not result in a patentably distinct system because the remaining combination performs substantially the same round-up savings accumulation, threshold notification, user-directed distribution, and distributed banking-server processing. Accordingly, Current claim 11 is an obvious variation of patented claim 11.
Claims 12–16
Claim 12 expressly requires reducing POS computing load by deferring calculation of the first savings amount to the computer server and reducing server computing load by postponing debiting until the aggregate savings amount reaches the predetermined threshold. Patented claim 12 expressly recites this load-reduction subject matter.
Claim 13 specifies that the wireless device is a tablet. Patented claim 13 recites the same limitation.
Claim 14 requires the wireless device to present the threshold notification, provide selectable input elements corresponding to recipient accounts, receive recipient-selection information, and transform the selection information into a selective distribution message before network transmission to the server. The patented claim set recites these same operations.
Claim 15 requires recipient selection through voice activation of the wireless device. Patented claim 15 recites the same limitation.
Claim 16 specifies that the wireless-device interface is a touchscreen display. Patented claim 16 recites the same limitation.
Accordingly, claims 12–16 do not impart patentable distinctness over the corresponding patented claims.
Independent Claim 17
Current claim 17 is rejected as being unpatentable over patented claim 17.
Patented claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing processor-executable instructions implementing the same basic transaction architecture: server authorization of a POS transaction; posting to a source account; calculation of round-up savings; aggregation of savings from multiple transactions; threshold determination; mobile-device vibration notification; receipt of a selective distribution message identifying recipient accounts; and separation and distribution of that message to multiple banking servers to transfer the savings while distributing processing load.
Patented claim 17 additionally recites determining that the aggregate savings amount is available before debiting and expressly associates the server-side calculation and delayed debit with computing-load reduction.
Current claim 17 omits those restrictions while otherwise reciting substantially the same computer-readable-medium implementation.
The omission of restrictions from the patented claim does not establish a patentably distinct invention where the remaining claimed subject matter constitutes substantially the same computerized round-up savings and selective-distribution process. Current claim 17 therefore represents an obvious broader variation of patented claim 17.
Accordingly, Current claim 17 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 17.
Claims 18–20
Claim 18 requires the selective distribution message to comprise a unique packet having fields relating to message identification, source accounts, recipient accounts, savings amounts, dates, and savings selections. Patented claim 18 recites the same limitation.
Claim 19 requires the mobile-device interface to comprise a graphic display. Patented claim 19 recites the same limitation.
Claim 20 requires the interface to comprise a touchscreen display. Patented claim 20 recites the corresponding touchscreen limitation.
Accordingly, claims 18–20 are not patentably distinct from patented claims 17–20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 17 recite substantially corresponding method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable-storage-medium embodiments.
These claims have been analyzed as a whole under the Alice/Mayo framework and the USPTO subject-matter-eligibility analysis.
I. STEP 1 — STATUTORY CATEGORY
Claim 1 recites a method and therefore falls within the statutory category of a process.
Claim 11 recites a system comprising a point-of-sale device, computer server, and wireless device and therefore falls within the statutory category of a machine.
Claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and therefore falls within the statutory category of manufacture.
Accordingly, independent claims 1, 11, and 17 satisfy Step 1. The claims are therefore evaluated under Step 2A.
II. STEP 2A — PRONG ONE
Under Step 2A, Prong One, the Examiner determines whether a claim recites a judicial exception.
A. Independent Claim 1
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
authorizing a first financial transaction;
posting the financial transaction to a source account;
calculating a savings amount by rounding a transaction amount to a nearest whole monetary amount and determining the difference;
determining an aggregate savings amount by adding savings amounts associated with multiple financial transactions;
determining whether the aggregate savings amount has reached a predetermined threshold;
notifying an account holder when the savings amount reaches the threshold;
receiving a selection identifying one or more recipient accounts; and
causing at least a portion of the aggregate savings to be debited from the source account and transferred to the selected recipient account or accounts.
These limitations recite the concept of automatically accumulating savings associated with financial transactions and distributing accumulated funds among selected financial accounts.
This constitutes a certain method of organizing human activity, particularly a fundamental economic practice and/or commercial interaction involving financial transactions, savings, account management, and transfer of money between financial accounts.
More specifically, authorizing a financial transaction, posting the transaction to an account, setting aside savings associated with transactions, accumulating those savings, applying a savings threshold, selecting destination accounts, and transferring accumulated funds constitute financial activities ordinarily associated with banking and personal financial management.
Claim 1 therefore recites a judicial exception.
Mathematical Concepts
Claim 1 additionally expressly requires:
“calculating ... a first savings amount by rounding a transaction amount ... to a nearest whole monetary amount”;
and
“determining ... an aggregate savings amount by adding together the first savings amount and a second savings amount.”
Rounding a numerical monetary amount, determining the difference between monetary amounts, and adding monetary amounts constitute mathematical calculations.
Accordingly, these limitations additionally fall within the mathematical-concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
Thus, claim 1 recites both:
a certain method of organizing human activity involving financial transactions, savings, and distribution of funds; and
mathematical calculations used to determine the savings amounts.
B. Independent Claim 11
Claim 11 recites substantially the same financial operations in system form.
The computer server: authorizes a financial transaction; posts the transaction to a source account; calculates round-up savings; aggregates savings from multiple transactions; determines whether the savings threshold has been reached; notifies the user; receives the user's selection of recipient accounts; and causes distribution of accumulated savings among selected accounts.
Accordingly, claim 11 likewise recites the abstract financial practice of accumulating savings based upon financial transactions and distributing accumulated funds among selected financial accounts, together with mathematical calculations for determining individual and aggregate savings amounts.
The recitation of the financial operations as functions performed by a computer server does not remove the underlying financial activity from the abstract-idea grouping.
C. Independent Claim 17
Claim 17 recites substantially the same financial operations as processor-executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
The instructions implement authorization, posting, round-up calculation, savings aggregation, threshold evaluation, notification, recipient selection, and distribution of accumulated funds.
Accordingly, claim 17 likewise recites the identified fundamental economic/commercial practice and mathematical calculations.
Thus, independent claims 1, 11, and 17 recite judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
III. STEP 2A — PRONG TWO
The claims are next considered as a whole to determine whether additional elements integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application.
A. Claim 1 — Additional Elements
Claim 1 additionally recites:
a point-of-sale device;
a computer server in signal communication with the point-of-sale device;
a mobile device;
an interface of the mobile device;
a motor in the mobile device;
a selective distribution message type;
separating the selective distribution message into a plurality of messages;
a plurality of banking servers; and
distributing the plurality of messages among the banking servers.
The claim further states that the method is performed:
“to reduce computing load on a point-of-sale device,” and that:
“the separating then distributing of the plurality of messages distributes a processing load among the plurality of banking servers.”
These limitations have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
The POS device initiates the financial transaction, while the server performs authorization, posting, savings calculation, aggregation, threshold determination, notification, and distribution functions.
The claim does not recite a particular improvement to the internal operation of the POS device or server. Instead, the POS device and server are used as tools for implementing the underlying financial process.
Merely assigning the financial calculations to the server instead of the POS device does not, as presently claimed, establish an improvement to computer technology itself.
The mobile device receives information indicating that the savings threshold has been reached and provides an interface through which the user selects recipient accounts.
The mobile device and interface therefore constitute technological tools through which information concerning the financial process is communicated and user instructions concerning distribution of money are obtained.
The claim does not require an improved mobile-device architecture or an improved user-interface technology.
Claim 1 requires the notification to include:
“a signal activating a motor in the mobile device to cause vibration of the mobile device.”
This limitation imposes a physical action on the mobile device.
However, the motor and vibration merely communicate to the user that the abstract financial condition—aggregate savings reaching the predetermined threshold—has occurred.
The vibration does not itself perform the financial calculation or improve operation of the mobile device. Rather, conventional physical notification functionality is invoked after satisfaction of the financial condition.
Accordingly, the vibration limitation does not meaningfully integrate the underlying financial process into a technological application.
Claim 1 further requires receiving a “selective distribution message type” containing information identifying recipient accounts.
As claimed, the message communicates the user's financial-distribution selection to the server.
The claim does not require a particular technical message protocol, packet architecture, encoding technique, routing protocol, or network improvement responsible for solving a technological communication problem.
Rather, the message carries the information necessary to execute the underlying financial distribution.
Claim 1 further requires:
“separating then distributing ... the selective distribution message type into a plurality of messages to a plurality of banking servers”;
and specifies that doing so:
“distributes a processing load among the plurality of banking servers.”
The Examiner has considered this limitation as potentially relevant to a technological improvement.
Nevertheless, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the claimed separation/distribution is functionally defined according to the financial objective: transmitting instructions to the banking servers responsible for debiting and distributing the accumulated savings.
The claim does not specify a particular load-balancing algorithm, server-selection mechanism, distributed-computing protocol, message-partitioning technique, workload measurement, processor-utilization criterion, network-topology modification, concurrency technique, or other technical mechanism by which computer performance is improved.
Instead, the claimed processing load is distributed as a consequence of separating financial-distribution instructions and sending those instructions to multiple banking servers.
The limitation therefore applies the abstract financial-distribution process using multiple computer servers rather than reciting a specific improvement in distributed-computing technology.
The preamble characterizes the method as one “to reduce computing load on a point-of-sale device.”
The body of claim 1 assigns the round-up savings calculation and related processing to the computer server.
However, the claim does not recite a particular improvement in processor architecture, memory management, task scheduling, data compression, network utilization, or another technical mechanism for improving POS operation.
The reduction follows from assigning the underlying financial calculations to another computer.
Accordingly, this result does not, on the present claim language, amount to a specific technological improvement sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
IV. INDEPENDENT CLAIM 11 — STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
Claim 11 additionally recites: a POS device; a computer server; a wireless device;
computer memory; a processor; communications among the devices; a motor producing vibration; an interface; a selective distribution message; and multiple banking servers.
These components implement substantially the same abstract financial process identified for claim 1.
The system receives and processes financial transaction information, calculates and accumulates savings, evaluates a financial threshold, obtains account-selection information, and transfers money.
The additional computer components provide the technological environment through which that process is performed.
Claim 11's multiple-server distribution likewise does not specify a particular technological load-balancing mechanism. Rather, financial-transfer instructions are distributed to multiple banking servers, with the claimed processing-load distribution resulting from the assignment of financial-transfer operations among those servers.
Accordingly, claim 11 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
V. INDEPENDENT CLAIM 17 — STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
Claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions implementing substantially the same financial process.
The storage medium and processor provide the technological mechanism for executing the claimed instructions.
The claim does not improve computer-readable-storage technology or processor operation.
Similarly, the POS device, computer server, mobile device, mobile-device motor, interface, messages, and banking servers are used to implement the underlying financial process.
The distributed-message limitation does not specify a particular technological mechanism for improving distributed processing beyond dividing the financial instructions among banking servers.
Accordingly, claim 17 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
VI. DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Claims 2 and 18 — Selective Distribution Packet
Claims 2 and 18 specify that the selective distribution message is a unique packet containing fields relating to: message identification; source accounts; recipient accounts; savings amounts; dates; and savings selections.
These fields principally identify the financial information carried by the message.
The claims do not specify an improved packet format, network protocol, transmission mechanism, error-correction mechanism, security architecture, or other technological improvement.
Accordingly, claims 2 and 18 remain directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 3 requires: “encrypting the selection information before transmitting over a network.”
Encryption provides a technological security operation beyond the financial concept itself.
However, the claim merely requires encryption at a high functional level and does not recite a particular encryption algorithm, key-management architecture, cryptographic protocol, or improvement to computer security.
The encryption therefore constitutes use of generic computer-security functionality to protect financial information transmitted in implementing the abstract process and, as claimed, does not integrate the underlying financial exception into a practical application.
Claim 4 specifies a smartphone and claim 13 specifies a tablet.
These limitations merely identify particular generic computing devices through which the financial process is implemented and do not provide a technological improvement.
Claim 5 requires the notification to comprise a text message.
The text message communicates the result of the financial threshold determination and therefore constitutes insignificant extra-solution communication of the financial result rather than a technological improvement.
Claim 6 specifies a fixed amount of funds.
Claim 7 specifies a percentage of funds of a user-selected goal.
Claim 8 specifies aggregate savings over a given time period.
These limitations further define the financial rules governing when accumulated savings are distributed. They therefore further limit the underlying financial/economic practice itself rather than add technological functionality.
Claims 9, 16 and 20 specify touchscreen displays.
Claim 10 specifies touchscreen elements identifying recipient accounts.
Claim 19 specifies a graphic display.
These interfaces display financial information and/or receive user selections identifying accounts to which savings should be transferred.
These claims do not recite an improvement in touchscreen operation, graphical rendering, display technology, input detection, or human-computer-interface technology.
Accordingly, these limitations merely provide generic interfaces for receiving or presenting information used in the abstract financial process.
Claim 12 warrants separate consideration because it expressly recites: “computing load on the point-of-sale device is reduced by deferring calculation of the first savings amount to the computer server”; and
“computing load on the computer server is reduced by postponing a step of debiting ... until the aggregate savings amount has reached the pre-determined threshold.”
These limitations state computational benefits.
However, the first alleged improvement results from assigning the financial round-up calculation to a server rather than the POS device. The claim does not recite a particular technical mechanism for reducing computational complexity of the calculation itself.
Likewise, the second alleged improvement results from postponing execution of the financial debit until satisfaction of a financial threshold. The claim does not recite a technical scheduling algorithm, resource-allocation technique, processor-management mechanism, memory-management technique, or other improvement in computer operation.
The claimed reduction therefore arises from when and where the abstract financial operations are performed, rather than from a specific improvement in computing technology.
Accordingly, claim 12 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 14 requires the wireless device to: present the notification; provide selectable input elements corresponding to recipient accounts; receive selection information; and transform the selection information into a selective distribution message before network transmission.
These operations collect the user's financial selection and format/communicate it for processing. The claim does not specify a particular technological transformation, encoding scheme, network protocol, or data structure that improves computer operation.
Accordingly, claim 14 remains directed to the identified abstract idea.
Claim 15 requires selection of a recipient account through voice activation of the wireless device. The voice-activated device is used merely as an input mechanism for specifying the account selected for the financial transfer.
The claim does not recite an improvement to speech recognition, audio processing, or voice-interface technology.
Accordingly, claim 15 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
VII. ORDERED COMBINATION — STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
The claims have also been considered as ordered combinations.
The claimed sequence generally:
authorizes and posts a financial transaction;
calculates transaction-based savings;
aggregates savings across transactions;
compares accumulated savings with a threshold;
notifies the user when the threshold is reached;
receives the user's selection of recipient financial accounts;
converts/communicates the selection through electronic messages; and
causes the accumulated savings to be transferred among financial accounts.
Viewed as a whole, the claimed arrangement automates a round-up savings and distribution program using POS devices, servers, mobile/wireless devices, and banking servers.
The recitation of server-side processing, physical vibration notification, electronic messages, and multiple banking servers does not alter the fundamental character of the claimed process.
Particularly, the claims do not recite how message separation or server distribution technically achieves load balancing beyond assigning portions of the financial processing to multiple servers.
The ordered combination therefore improves or automates the underlying financial process rather than reciting a specific improvement in computer functionality.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
VIII. STEP 2B — INVENTIVE CONCEPT
Because claims 1–20 are directed to judicial exceptions, the claims are evaluated under Step 2B to determine whether the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the exceptions.
The additional elements include: the POS device; computer server; mobile/wireless device; smartphone/tablet; processor and memory; computer-readable storage medium;
communication network; touchscreen/graphic interface; text messaging; voice input; motor/vibration notification; encryption; electronic message/packet processing; and
plurality of banking servers.
These claims principally invoke these components according to their ordinary computer, communication, notification, security, input/output, and transaction-processing functions.
No claim requires a particular unconventional processor architecture, network topology, load-balancing algorithm, packet-processing algorithm, cryptographic technique, distributed-computing protocol, or mobile-device architecture.
The limitations concerning server-side savings calculation, postponement of debiting, and distribution of financial instructions among banking servers have also been considered in combination.
As claimed, these limitations amount to allocating different portions of the financial process to different computers and delaying a financial operation until satisfaction of the claimed financial condition.
The resulting reduction in computing load is therefore incidental to the allocation and timing of the underlying financial operations rather than the result of a specifically claimed technological improvement.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not transform the character of the claims from an automated financial savings/distribution process into a patent-eligible technological invention. Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exceptions.
Thus independent claims 1, 11, and 17 recite the abstract concept of calculating and accumulating savings associated with financial transactions and distributing accumulated savings among selected financial accounts, which constitutes a fundamental economic/commercial practice and therefore a certain method of organizing human activity.
The claims additionally recite mathematical calculations comprising rounding monetary transaction amounts, determining differences between monetary amounts, and adding savings amounts.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional POS device, server, mobile/wireless device, motor/vibration notification, interface, messages, communication network, and banking servers do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application.
Although the claims expressly refer to reducing POS/server computing load and distributing processing load among banking servers, they do not recite a particular technological mechanism that achieves the asserted computer improvement. Instead, the asserted load reduction results from assigning, delaying, or distributing the underlying financial operations among different computers.
Dependent claims 2–10, 12–16, and 18–20 further define the financial rules or add generic computer, communication, notification, encryption, display, or input functionality without providing a specific technological improvement sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exceptions.
Accordingly, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to judicial exceptions without additional elements that integrate the exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exceptions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROKIB MASUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5390. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/ROKIB MASUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights