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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/15/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 57-75 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
It is appropriate for the Examiner to determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test as recited in the following Steps: 1, 2A, and 2B, see MPEP 2106(III.).
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 1:
First, the Examiner is to establish whether the claim falls within any statutory category including a process, a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, see MPEP 2106.03(II.) and MPEP 2106.03(I).
Claims 57-73 are related to a system, and claim 75 is also related to a method (i.e., a process). Claim 74 is related to a “non-transitory” processor readable media storing instructions. Accordingly, these claims are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong One:
Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test demonstrates whether a clam is directed to a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(I.). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, where Prong One establishes the judicial exception. Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes, see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(1.) and 2106.04(a)(2).
Representative independent claim 57 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea as underlined in the following limitations. Specifically, independent claim 57 recites:
A computer system configured to communicate with one or more display generation components and one or more input devices, comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
receiving first user health information corresponding to a user of the computer system;
in response to receiving the first user health information, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a first notification pertaining to the first user health information;
while displaying the first notification, detecting, via the one or more input devices, a first user input corresponding to selection of the first notification; and
in response to detecting the first user input, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a first user interface, wherein the first user interface includes:
additional user health information pertaining to the user of the computer system that was not displayed in the first notification; and
a first prompt prompting the user of the computer system to ask a question.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing interactions between people as the following abstract limitations recite displaying additional user health information pertaining to the user and a first prompt prompting the user to ask a question:
In response to receiving the first user health information, displaying a first notification pertaining to the first user health information, which recites abstract limitation of a communication and presentation of the notification to the user,
While displaying the first notification, detecting a first user input corresponding to selection of the first notification, which recites an abstract limitation of an interaction involving the first user input of the selection of the notification,
In response to detecting the first user input, displaying additional user health information pertaining to the user that was not displayed in the first notification and a first prompt prompting the user to ask a question, which recites abstract limitations of communication and interaction with the user by presenting the additional user health information and a prompt for the user to ask a question.
The claim limitations as a whole recite steps for displaying additional user health information pertaining to the user and a first prompt prompting the user to ask a question, which recites managing interactions between people including social activity steps for the management of the health of the user, and thus is a certain method of organizing human activity.
The abstract idea recited in claims 74 and 75 are similar to that of claim 57.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., processor) and will be discussed in further detail below.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fails to make the abstract idea any less abstract as noted below:
Claim 58 recites further abstract limitations related to the display or presentation of information to the user that was note in the first notification related to types of the information and second additional health information, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 59 recites further abstract limitations of displaying or presenting question recommendations that pertain to the additional user health information concurrently with the user health info and the first prompt concurrently, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 60 recites further abstract limitations of the presentation of information as further describing the first user health info, the first notification being generated in response to receive the first health info that pertains to activities, and the first notification pertaining to the activities that have been scheduled for the user, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 61 recites further abstract limitations describing the presentation of information as displaying additional information about the one or more activities that have been scheduled for the user that was not displayed in the first notification, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 62 recites further abstract limitations of detecting one or more user inputs corresponding to a user request to modify a first activity of the activities and in response to the input, swapping the first activity with a second activity, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 63 recites further abstract limitations of detecting inputs to modify a first activity and then displaying or presenting a follow-up question pertaining to the user request to modify the activity, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 64 recites further abstract limitations describing the presentation of information as further displaying the additional info by disapplying a start activity options that initiates a first activity from the schedule, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 65 recites further abstract limitations further describing the user health information pertaining to workouts that have been completed and where the first notification is generated in response to receiving the health info, and the first notification pertaining to the completed workouts of the user, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 66 recites further additional elements of the presentation of information including displaying the additional information that was not displayed in the first notification comprising displaying additional workout information that have not been completed that was not displayed in the first notification, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 67 recites further abstract limitations describing the displaying or presentation of the question recommendations that pertain to the workouts that have been complemented to be concurrently displayed with the additional user health information, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 68 recites further abstract limitations further describing the first user health information pertaining to a fitness goal for the user, the first notification generated in response to receiving the first health info pertinent to the fitness goal, and the first notification pertaining to the fitness goal corresponding to the user, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 69 recites further abstract limitations describing the presentation of information including displaying the question recommendations pertaining to the fitness goal of the user concurrent with the additional health information, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 70 recites further abstract limitations further describing the first user health information pertaining to a health-based alert for the user where the alert is determined based on biometric information, the first notification generated in response to receive the health info pertaining to the alert and the notification pertaining to the alert for the user, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 71 recites further abstract limitations further describing the display or presentation of information as further describing the information pertaining to the user that was not displayed in the notification comp0rising displaying additional information pertaining to the health-based alert for the user that was not displayed in the notification, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 72 recites further abstract limitations further describing the additional information pertaining to the health-based alerts including biometric measurement pertaining to the health alert, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 73 recites further abstract limitations describing the displaying of the question recommendations that pertain to the alert concurrently with the additional health info and the first prompt, further describing the abstract idea.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrates the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exceptions into a “practical application,” see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(2.) and 2106.04(d)(I.).
In the present case at claim 57, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A computer system configured to communicate with one or more display generation components and one or more input devices, comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
receiving first user health information corresponding to a user of the computer system (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.);
in response to receiving the first user health information, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a first notification pertaining to the first user health information;
while displaying the first notification, detecting, via the one or more input devices, a first user input corresponding to selection of the first notification; and
in response to detecting the first user input, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a first user interface, wherein the first user interface includes (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
additional user health information pertaining to the user of the computer system that was not displayed in the first notification; and
a first prompt prompting the user of the computer system to ask a question.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of the computer system comprising processors and memory with instructions, where the system communicates with display generation components and input devices, use of the display generation components, use of the input devices and the use of a first user interface, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0169, 0171] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of the generic computing system with generic processors and memory and non-transitory storage media. [0043] recites the generically configured display generation components. [0170] recites the use of the generic input devices. [0043] recites the use of generic user interface technology to merely display the information. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claims 74 and 75 recite similar additional elements as claim 57 that are analyzed in a similar manner.
Regarding the additional limitation of receiving first user health information corresponding to a user of the computer system, this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). [0224, 0254, 0256] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the action of receiving the health information of the user from outside devices such as a data from a smartwatch. The use of the devices to receive the data are used to perform actions for the system including data gathering for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activities.
Claims 74 and 75 recite similar additional elements as claim 57 that are analyzed in a similar manner.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to display health information, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, see MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set below:
Claims 59, 67, 69, 73 recite further additional elements related to the “automatically” generated question recommendations, however this recites mere computer automation of the abstract idea using generic computing components, and therefore does not recite a practical application nor technology improvement. Claim 60 recites further additional elements related to the “automatically” scheduled activities, however this recites mere computer automation of the abstract idea using generic computing components, and therefore does not recite a practical application nor technology improvement.
Thus, taken alone and in ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, the independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(II.). Further, it may need to be established, when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, that the additional elements recite well understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding the additional limitation of the computer system comprising processors and memory with instructions, where the system communicates with display generation components and input devices, use of the display generation components, use of the input devices and the use of a first user interface, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0169, 0171] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of the generic computing system with generic processors and memory and non-transitory storage media. [0043] recites the generically configured display generation components. [0170] recites the use of the generic input devices. [0043] recites the use of generic user interface technology to merely display the information. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 74 and 75 recite similar additional elements as claim 57 that are analyzed in a similar manner.
Regarding the additional limitation of receiving first user health information corresponding to a user of the computer system, this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”). [0224, 0254, 0256] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the action of receiving the health information of the user from outside devices such as a data from a smartwatch. The use of the devices to receive the data are used to perform actions for the system including data gathering for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activities and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The wireless transmission of biometric data from external devices to the computing system for data gathering purposes as noted further in [0150] recites well understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Claims 74 and 75 recite similar additional elements as claim 57 that are analyzed in a similar manner.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and therefore claims 57-75 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 57-75 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220296966 A1 to Asikainen et al. (“Asikainen”) in view of US 20250229135 A1 to Brammer (“Brammer”):
Regarding claim 57:
Asikainen teaches a computer system configured to communicate with one or more display generation components and one or more input devices, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: ([0038, 0058]- overall system described with the processors, memory, and display components with input devices.)
receiving first user health information corresponding to a user of the computer system; ([0051]- biometric data such as heart rate is gathered by the system via sensors in the sensor data.)
in response to receiving the first user health information, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a first notification pertaining to the first user health information; ([0117]- A portion of the user interface includes a second portion which includes a textual notification of muscle groups that were overtrained/undertrained (interpreted as the first notification).)
while displaying the first notification, detecting, via the one or more input devices, a first user input corresponding to selection of the first notification; and ([0058]- the user interface includes a touch display as input device to select. [0117]- the user can select a particular muscle group.)
in response to detecting the first user input, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a first user interface, ([0108] – interactive screen can be used to display the user interface that displays the real time feedback including the biometric data. [0117, 0119]- further describing the user interface that can be interacted with the user’s interaction.)
wherein the first user interface includes: additional user health information pertaining to the user of the computer system that was not displayed in the first notification; and ([0117]- recommendations for the next set of workouts based on the previously selection of muscle group can be displayed for the user (interpreted as the additional user health information).)
Asikainen however does not teach:
a first prompt prompting the user of the computer system to ask a question
Brammer however teaches before the effective filing date of the current invention of a system for generating fitness recommendations for a user based on exercise information from the user [0014]. The system generates a chatbot where the user can interact with after an input is received [0024]. The chatbot prompts a user to ask a question from a follow up [0096, 0098].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have a first prompt prompting the user of the computer system to ask a question as in Brammer in the system of Asikainen with the motivation of providing better communication to the user of the system for health management as taught by Brammer over that of Asikainen.
Claims 74 and 75 are rejected in a similar manner as claim 57.
Regarding claim 58:
Asikainen/Brammer teaches all of the limitations of claim 57. Asikainen further teaches wherein displaying the additional user health information pertaining to the user of the computer system that was not displayed in the first notification comprises: in accordance with a determination that the first notification includes a first type of health information, displaying, within the first user interface, first additional user health information that pertains to the user of the computer system and pertains to the first type of health information and was not displayed in the first notification; and ([0117]- recommendations for the next set of workouts based on the previously selection of muscle group can be displayed for the user (interpreted as the additional user health information).)
in accordance with a determination that the first notification includes a second type of health information different from the first type of health information displaying, within the first user interface, second additional user health information that pertains to the user of the computer system and pertains to the second type of health information and was not displayed in the first notification and is different from the first additional user health information. ([0058]- the user interface includes a touch display as input device to select. [0117]- the user can select a particular muscle group. [0117]- recommendations for the next set of workouts based on the previously selection of muscle group can be displayed for the user (second type of health information can be displayed can be displayed if another muscle group was selected beforehand, for example, indicating a second type of health information different from the first).)
Regarding claim 60:
Asikainen/Brammer teaches all of the limitations of claim 57. Asikainen further teaches the first user health information pertains to one or more activities that have been automatically scheduled for the user of the computer system; ([0051]- biometric data such as heart rate is gathered by the system via sensors in the sensor data. Data taken from doing exercise movement activities.)
the first notification is generated in response to receiving the first user health information that pertains to the one or more activities that have been automatically scheduled for the user of the computer system; and ([0117]- A portion of the user interface includes a second portion which includes a textual notification of muscle groups that were overtrained/undertrained, where this data was from a previous exercise workout session (interpreted as the automatically scheduled activities).)
the first notification pertains to the one or more activities that have been automatically scheduled for the user of the computer system. ([0117]- recommendations for the next set of workouts based on the previously selection of muscle group can be displayed for the user, where the recommendations are generated by the system.)
Regarding claim 61:
Asikainen/Brammer teaches all of the limitations of claim 60. Asikainen further teaches wherein the first user interface includes additional information about the one or more activities that have been automatically scheduled for the user of the computer system that was not displayed in the first notification. ([0117]- recommendations for the next set of workouts based on the previously selection of muscle group can be displayed for the user, where the recommendations are generated by the system (the recommendations are generated based on analysis of the previous data gathered, therefore indicating that they were not displayed in the first notification).)
Regarding claim 62:
Asikainen/Brammer teaches all of the limitations of claim 60. Asikainen further teaches while displaying the first user interface, detecting, via the one or more input devices, one or more user inputs corresponding to a user request to modify a first activity of the one or more activities that have been automatically scheduled for the user of the computer system; and in response to detecting the one or more user inputs corresponding to the user request to modify the first activity, swapping the first activity with a second activity different from the first activity. ([0097]- user modification of the recommendations)
Regarding claim 64:
Asikainen/Brammer teaches all of the limitations of claim 60. Asikainen further teaches wherein displaying the additional user health information pertaining to the user of the computer system that was not displayed in the first notification comprises displaying a start activity option that, when selected, causes the computer system to initiate a first activity of the one or more activities that have been automatically scheduled for the user of the computer system. ([0061, 0122]- start workout session)
Regarding claim 65:
Asikainen/Brammer teaches all of the limitations of claim 57. Asikainen further teaches the first user health information pertains to one or more workouts that have been completed by the user of the computer system; ([0117]- A portion of the user interface includes a second portion which includes a textual notification of muscle groups that were overtrained/undertrained, where this data was from a previous exercise workout session that would have been completed)
the first notification is generated in response to receiving the first user health information that pertains to the one or more workouts that have been completed by the user of the computer system; and the first notification pertains to the one or more workouts that have been completed by the user of the computer system. ([0117]- A portion of the user interface includes a second portion which includes a textual notification of muscle groups that were overtrained/undertrained after the workout)
Regarding claim 66:
Asikainen/Brammer teaches all of the limitations of claim 65. Asikainen further teaches wherein displaying the additional user health information pertaining to the user of the computer system that was not displayed in the first notification comprises displaying additional workout information pertaining to the one or more workouts that have been completed by the user of the computer system that was not displayed in the first notification. ([0117]- A portion of the user interface includes a second portion which includes a textual notification of muscle groups that were overtrained/undertrained after the workout where different recommendations are presented to the user)
Regarding claim 68:
Asikainen/Brammer teaches all of the limitations of claim 57. Asikainen further teaches the first user health information pertains to a fitness goal corresponding to the user of the computer system; ([0117]- fitness goals are presented)
the first notification is generated in response to receiving the first user health information that pertains to the fitness goal corresponding to the user of the computer system; and ([0117]- fitness goals are presented and then the second portion with the textual notification is presented)
the first notification pertains to the fitness goal corresponding to the user of the computer system. ([00117]- recommendations generated based on the muscle groups that are overtrained/undertrained, indicating reaching a workout goal related to the over/under training.)
Regarding claim 70:
Asikainen/Brammer teaches all of the limitations of claim 57. Asikainen further teaches the first user health information pertains to a health-based alert for the user of the computer system, ([0117]- heat map for undertrained muscles (interpreted as the health-based alert).)
wherein the health-based alert is determined based on biometric information collected from the user of the computer system; ([0116]- use of performance trackers)
the first notification is generated in response to receiving the first user health information that pertains to the health alert for the user of the computer system; and the first notification pertains to the health alert for the user of the computer system. ([0117]- A portion of the user interface includes a second portion which includes a textual notification of muscle groups that were overtrained/undertrained)
Regarding claim 71:
Asikainen/Brammer teaches all of the limitations of claim 70. Asikainen further wherein displaying the additional user health information pertaining to the user of the computer system that was not displayed in the first notification comprises displaying additional information pertaining to the health-based alert for the user of the computer system that was not displayed in the first notification. ([0117]- recommendations for the next set of workouts based on the previously selection of muscle group can be displayed for the user, where the recommendations are based on the previous information related to the muscle groups that were based on the over/undertrained muscle data.)
Regarding claim 72:
Asikainen/Brammer teaches all of the limitations of claim 71. Asikainen further wherein the additional information pertaining to the health-based alert includes one or more biometric measurements pertaining to the health-based alert. ([0117]- over/under trained information is displayed)
Claims 59, 63, 67, 69, and 73 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being dependent to claim 57, however the references do not teach these claims.
The following references have been considered as relevant, however have not been used in the above rejections:
WO-2014144258-A2 to Hoffman et al. teaches of a mobile app system for fitness tracking using biometric data.
NPL “Effects of a personalized fitness recommender system using gamification and continuous player modeling: system design and long-term validation study” to Zhao et al. teaches of a personalized treatment recommendation system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS whose telephone number is (571)272-6719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason B Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. 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.
/CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights