DETAILED ACTION
This non-final action replies to application, filed Sept. 30, 2025, that is a broadening reissue application of 18/492592, now U.S. Pat. 12,277,614 with a co-filed amendment that amends claims 1-3, 7, 10-12 and 16-18. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Amendment
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
(b) Making amendments in a reissue application. An amendment in a reissue application is made either by physically incorporating the changes into the specification when the application is filed, or by a separate amendment paper. If amendment is made by incorporation, markings pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section must be used. If amendment is made by an amendment paper, the paper must direct that specified changes be made, as follows:
(1) Specification other than the claims. Changes to the specification, other than to the claims, must be made by submission of the entire text of an added or rewritten paragraph, including markings pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, except that an entire paragraph may be deleted by a statement deleting the paragraph without presentation of the text of the paragraph. The precise point in the specification must be identified where any added or rewritten paragraph is located. This paragraph applies whether the amendment is submitted on paper or compact disc (see §§ 1.52(e)(1) and 1.821(c), but not for discs submitted under § 1.821(e)).
(2) Claims. An amendment paper must include the entire text of each claim being changed by such amendment paper and of each claim being added by such amendment paper. For any claim changed by the amendment paper, a parenthetical expression “amended,” “twice amended,” etc., should follow the claim number. Each changed patent claim and each added claim must include markings pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, except that a patent claim or added claim should be canceled by a statement canceling the claim without presentation of the text of the claim….
(c) Status of claims and support for claim changes. Whenever there is an amendment to the claims pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status (i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims, and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.
(d) Changes shown by markings. Any changes relative to the patent being reissued which are made to the specification, including the claims, upon filing, or by an amendment paper in the reissue application, must include the following markings:
(1) The matter to be omitted by reissue must be enclosed in brackets; and
(2) The matter to be added by reissue must be underlined, except for amendments submitted on compact discs (§§ 1.96 and 1.821(c)). Matter added by reissue on compact discs must be preceded with “<U>” and end with “</U>” to properly identify the material being added…
(g) Amendments made relative to the patent. All amendments must be made relative to the patent specification, including the claims, and drawings, which are in effect as of the date of filing of the reissue application.
The Amendment filed Sept. 30, 2025 proposes amendments to claims that do not comply with 37 CFR 1.173 (b)-(g), which sets forth the manner of making amendments in reissue applications. The cited amendment fails to use proper claim markings for claim 1 since the “transmitting… prepare the at least one menu selection” as now amended, omits the term “using” (as shown in table below in comparison of original claim 1) but does not include the omitted term in enclosing brackets and fails to use proper claim status for amended claims in a reissue as required, per 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2) and (d)(2), since “Currently Amended” or similar “Previously Presented” are not a recognized status of a claim in a reissue application, as required by 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2). Also, the amendment fails to use proper claim marking to enclose omitted text within brackets [] as recited in new claims 34-41, per 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2) and (d)(2).
Reissue Application Declaration and 35 USC 251
The reissue application declaration by assignee, filed on Sept. 30, 2025, for this application is defective because it conflicts as to which patent is under reissue. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. A reissue application declaration by the assignee (PTO/AIA /06) is defective since the error statement states in-part, “The original independent claims 1, 10, and 16 are partly inoperative … due to the recitation of "that uses a feedback loop"” that regards recapture of surrendered subject matter that thereby regards an impermissible error, in this case, as relying on an error regarding omission of surrendered subject matter in 18/492592, as further detailed in improper recapture below relied on herein.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §251 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
Claims 1-20 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue application declaration by the inventor under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. MPEP 1414 II.(B) states in part: “In identifying the error, it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original patent claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.” The error statement in the co-filed declaration refers to a limitation of claim 1 that regards an impermissible error for reasons noted above and in improper recapture discussion below. See MPEP 1414 II. (C). See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. See In re Tanaka, 640 F.3d 1246, 1251, 98 USPQ2d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A broadening aspect is present in the reissue which was not present in the application for patent. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application (e.g. surrender-generating limitation). Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
Below are the pertinent findings of fact relevant to this rejection:
10/23/2023
The 18/492592 application (hereafter the ‘592 application) was filed with 20 claim.
06/06/2024
A first official non-final action on the merits was mailed rejecting the claims 1-20 under judicially created obviousness double patenting over claims 1-20 of 11798106, rejecting claims under 101 claims 1-20 as a judicial exception of abstract idea, rejecting claims 1-20 as obvious over 2016/0244311 (Burks) in view of 2009/0204492 (Scifo), rejecting claims 6 and 7 obvious over Burks in view of Scifo as applied to claim 1 and further in view of 2015/0227890 (Bednarek).
06/23/2021
Applicant filed an amendment/reply to amend claims 1, 10 and 16 to add new limitations concurrently asserted as a distinction in their remarks On pages 2, 4, 5, and 11, applicant amends claim 1 and states “Amended independent claim 1 recites, inter alia: transmitting, by the data processor using a network interface device connected to a network, the at least one ordered menu selection to a plurality of interconnected restaurant location servers that uses a feedback loop to update an overall order queue used for selecting a restaurant location to prepare the at least one ordered menu selection;” Thus, claims 1, 10 and 16 were amended to add “transmitting, by the data processor using a network interface device connected to a network, the at least one ordered menu selection to a plurality of interconnected restaurant location servers that uses a feedback loop to update an overall order queue used for selecting a restaurant location to prepare the at least one ordered menu selection.” (Emphasis added).
11/27/2024
An allowability notice was mailed relying on the 11/07/2024 amendment.
A reissue will not be granted to "recapture" claimed subject matter which was surrendered in an application to obtain the original patent. See MPEP §1412.20. A three step process is used to apply the recapture rule:
(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.” See MPEP §1412.02(I).
The first step of the three-step process we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims. Upon review of the new independent claim 1 of the present reissue application in comparison to claims 1-20 of ‘614 Patent, the Examiner finds that the Applicant through the Sept. 30, 2025 Amendment herein has broadened the claims by omitting the following limitations in claim 1: “that uses a feedback loop” and “receiving, at the data processor, a request for starting to prepare the at least one ordered menu selection from the at least one delivery service; and”, as similarly shown in table below. Although the comparison in table regards claim 1 herein, claims 10 and 16 also omit the above bolded limitation; while, the bolded “using” in table shows text omitted but not enclosed in a bracket as required.
Claim 1, as amended on 9/30/2025, herein
Claim 1 of ’614
A method for scheduling an order for one or more users, the method comprising the steps of:
A method for scheduling an order for a customer, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving, at one or more data processing units, at least one ordered menu selection;
receiving, at a data processor, at least one ordered menu selection;
transmitting, by the one or more data processing units one or more network interface devices connected to a network, the at least one ordered menu selection to a plurality of interconnected restaurant location servers to update an overall order queue used for selecting a restaurant location to prepare the at least one ordered menu selection;
transmitting, by the data processor using a network interface device connected to a network, the at least one ordered menu selection to a plurality of interconnected restaurant location servers that uses a feedback loop to update an overall order queue used for selecting a restaurant location to prepare the at least one ordered menu selection;
generating, at the one or more data processors, an estimated preparation time of the at least one ordered menu selection;
based on a determined geographic location of at least one delivery service and the selected restaurant location, assigning, by the one or more data processors, the at least one delivery service to deliver the at least one ordered menu selection from the selected restaurant location to one or more locations of the one or more users that made the at least one ordered menu selection;
sending, by the one or more data processors using the network interface device connected to the network, the estimated preparation time to the at least one delivery service;
and
transmitting tracking information of the at least one delivery service for presentation on a computing device of the user.
generating, at the data processor, an estimated preparation time of the at least one ordered menu selection;
based on a determined geographic location of at least one delivery service and the selected restaurant location, assigning, by the data processor, the at least one delivery service to deliver the at least one ordered menu selection from the selected restaurant location to a location of a user that made the at least one ordered menu selection;
sending, by the data processor using the network interface device connected to the network, the estimated preparation time to the at least one delivery service;
receiving, at the data processor, a request for starting to prepare the at least one ordered menu selection from the at least one delivery service; and
transmitting tracking information of the at least one delivery service for presentation on a computing device of the user.
Regarding step 2, Examiner finds that some of the broadening aspects relate to subject matter surrendered during prosecution of the 18/492592 Application leading to the original claims of ‘614 Patent. The Examiner finds that the Applicant through their Nov. 06, 2024 Amendment in this reissue has broadened the claims by omitting a limitation relating to the surrendered subject matter during examination of the ‘592 application as now particularly recited, that regards language amended into independent claims 1, 10 and 16 and concurrently argued by Applicant in the reply filed Nov. 06, 2024 amendment in 18/492592. As noted above in the findings of fact, the Applicant asserted the prior art does not disclose the added/argued limitation of “transmitting, by the data processor using a network interface device connected to a network, the at least one ordered menu selection to a plurality of interconnected restaurant location servers that uses a feedback loop to update an overall order queue used for selecting a restaurant location to prepare the at least one ordered menu selection” that was concurrently added into independent claims 1, 10 and 16 in the noted Nov. 2024 amendment during examination of ‘592 Application as present in issued claims 1-20 in ‘614 patent. It is emphasized that Applicant added this limitation and concurrently argued in their response that the added limitation relating to the now omitted feature with consideration of the Comparison of claim 1 herein as compared to issued claim 1 in ‘614 Patent) was a distinguishing limitation over the applied art (e.g., a surrender-generating limitation). As noted above, Applicant argued this feature in their response/amendment during examination. Thus, the noted limitation “transmitting, by the data processor using a network interface device connected to a network, the at least one ordered menu selection to a plurality of interconnected restaurant location servers that uses a feedback loop to update an overall order queue used for selecting a restaurant location to prepare the at least one ordered menu selection” in issued claims 1-20 in ‘614 regards subject matter surrendered during prosecution of the '592 Application leading to the original ‘614 Patent. From prosecution of ‘592 Application, the noted limitation regarding surrendered subject matter must be recited in present claims to avoid improper recapture.
Regarding step 3, Examiner further determines the narrowing limitation(s) of now reciting a plurality as “one or more” herein as compared to ‘614 claims that materially narrow the surrendered subject matter such that they are not directed to the surrendered subject matter.
Thus, in summary, the Examiner specifically finds that claims 1, 10 and 16 (and its dependent claims) have eliminated a feature/limitation through amendment in this application for which the claims of the original Patent were allowed. The Sept. 2025 Amendment herein attempts to improperly recapture surrendered subject matter explicitly surrendered during prosecution of ‘592 Application leading to the ‘614 Patent since an amended/argued limitation during examination of ‘592 Application is eliminated in this reissue application that coincidently regards subject matter relied on during prosecution of parent application to obtain the original patent. Claim scope that was canceled or amended is deemed surrendered and therefore barred from reissue. Clement, 131 F.3d at 1470, 45 USPQ2d at 1165. In re Mostafazadeh, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed Cir 2011), In re Youman, 102 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed Cir 2012). Next, there is no narrowing feature added by the preliminary amendment herein that materially narrows relative to the surrender-generating limitation. Specifically, independent claims 1, 10 and 16 (and their associated dependent claims) herein have omitted the feature “that uses a feedback loop” as recited in issued claims 1-20 of ’614. While to the extent there is/are added or narrowed element(s) herein that are not present in ‘614 claims, those element(s) is/are not directed to the noted surrendered subject matter. If surrendered subject matter has been entirely eliminated from a claim present in the reissue application, then a recapture rejection under 35 U.S.C. 251 is proper and must be made for that claim. See MPEP 1412.02 (I)(C). Stated another way, if a claim limitation present in the original patent that was added to overcome a rejection or that was argued by applicant to distinguish over the prior art is entirely eliminated from a claim in the reissue application, then a recapture rejection under 35 U.S.C. 251 is proper and must be made for that claim. See Id.
In view of the forgoing, the Applicant has attempted in the Nov. 2023 Amendment herein to improperly recapture subject matter explicitly surrendered during prosecution of the ‘846 Application leading to the ‘614 Patent for reasons stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Lacking evidence to the contrary, claim 1 recites “transmitting … to update an overall order queue used for selecting a restaurant location to prepare the at least one ordered menu selection” that regards subject matter that was not described in the 18/090161 disclosure in such a way to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art (a POSITA or an artisan) that the inventor at time of filing of the application was in possession of the invention as recited. After reading ‘614 and ‘106, the examiner deems there is no written description support for this limitation.
It is noteworthy that the amendment filed Nov. 6, 2024 by applicant in application 18/090161 amending claims 1, 10 and 16 similarly to include this limitation with no statement as to where support may be found in 11798106 as required by 37 CFR 1.173 and this is the same limitation relied on by applicant as a distinguishing feature over applied art in that examination, as noted in findings of fact in recapture issue above. This is noted not as an issue of examination in 18/492592 and 18/090161, but instead is noted only that support for this limitation was not previously stated by applicant and where there does not appear to be support in the disclosure for this limitation where the only text hit of this limitation is with regard to allowed claims in ‘614, as shown next while not present in ‘106 claims, and the noted limitation was not co-filed with the filing of that application, as noted in the findings of fact in recapture issue above. For instance, in text searches of ‘614 and ‘106 regarding various forms of “choos$3 chosen discriminat$3 pick$3 determin$4 select$3 exclusion exclud$3 prefer$3 preference” with “PC or computer or server” produces only hits in the claims 1, 10 and 16 of ‘614 with no hits in its description, but no similar hits in description or claims in 11798106. Also, text search of ‘614 and ‘106 regarding various forms of (position or location) with (PC or computer or server) produces the following hits in ‘106 with similar hits in ‘614 (as well as the prior noted hits in claims 1, 10 and 16 of ‘614).
(96) Customers (guests) may enter the lot and park in the customary parking spaces, or in the non-sequential single vehicle slanted spaces, as they desire. Menus are displayed on customer's mobile devices, or computers through the internet or other suitable distributive computing/communication system, and orders are made and processed when customers are at any location. In preferred embodiments, orders are entered before the guest enters the parking lot, scheduled for times in the future, etc. Customers wanting immediate, “as soon as possible” (ASAP), service will generally be located in the parking lot, be prepared to depart their current location for the restaurant, or be headed towards the restaurant lot. The most expedient location will be the slanted non-sequence single vehicle spaces 208. Customer without the ability to pay by mobile device may, in some embodiments, drive by the optional kiosk 218 and pay with cash or credit card or, in some embodiments, may pay via an optional attendant that roams the parking lot to take orders and payment. There is no provision for payment at the order pick up window.
‘106, 14:66-15:18; ‘614, 15:5-24.
(104) In some embodiments the invention is a system and process for managing and scheduling an order in a restaurant with both pick up business and delivery business. Scheduling take-out orders and delivery orders in the same preparation location (kitchen) is made more efficient while reducing wait time on pick up orders. This management process works basically the same as for pick up orders, except that driver pick up, driver time availability, and various orders' delivery locations proximity to each other will be taken into account in the data process unit to determine the scheduling of preparation and calculate delivery time. This allows proximate orders to be clustered with one driver to speed up overall times. Driver location and arrival time will be displayed on the delivery customer's computer or device in the same manner as for pick up customers.
‘106, 16:35-49; ‘614, 16:41-55.
(153) The order system is also capable, in some embodiments, of acquiring the location of a customer by receiving information from a global positioning system (GPS) system in the customer's mobile device or computer. GPS coordinates of the ordering customer is received from their mobile device and sent to the ordering system, or locating service or system connected to the ordering system, to aid in calculating travel time to better estimate a “future” pick up time. This is especially helpful for a restaurant along a highway. Potential customers can search down their travel route for a suitable restaurant, order using their mobile device, and have the system tell them how much time is required to reach the destination pick up location. Operation of a similar GPS system for ordering is disclosed in US published application U.S. 2006/0293971, the relevant disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference. U.S. Pat. No. 8,059,029 discloses a GPS tracking system with helpful information on the way and means to set up an appropriate GPS ordering system. The relevant disclosure of U.S. Pat. No. 8,059,029 are incorporated herein by reference.
‘106, 25:2-21; ‘614, 25:5-25.
Further, similar paragraphs to those above, are present in each of 11694285, 11182864 and 10402920. However, the paragraphs above, as well as any other portion of ‘614 or ‘106, do not appear to provide support for the “transmitting … to update an overall order queue used for selecting a restaurant location to prepare the at least one ordered menu selection”, since the location/position of a restaurant to prepare the ordered menu selection is selected based on a GPS or another similar positioning or locating technique rather than an update to an order queue, as recited. It is emphasized that the amendment that added the noted limitation to the independent claims and argued as a distinguishing feature over applied art (as summarized in recapture above) in examination of 18/492592, was neither co-filed with the filing of 18/492592 and not co-filed with filing of 18/090161. This is noted not as an issue of examination in 18/492592 and 18/090161, but instead is noted only that support for this limitation was not previously stated by applicant and where the only apparent tangential support appears to be in corresponding allowed claims in ‘614 (for the feature argued as distinguishing over applied references) but not within its disclosure and not within disclosure or claims in ’106.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 recites the limitation "the one or more data processors" in line 10 that is unclear whether this regards the “one or more data processing units” in line 2 or a different processor. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Of note is that claims 10 and 16 containing mostly similar amendments maintain reference to one or more data processing units throughout. For this action, the “data processors” are interpreted to be the recited “data processing units”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,798,106. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the clams are directed to the same invention. Lacking evidence to the contrary, with broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims without reading limitations from disclosure of US 11798106 (the ‘106) into the claims herein, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reason: in comparing Claims 1-20 of U.S. 11,798,106 to Claim 1 of the instant application (hereinafter IA), the Claims 1-20 of U.S. 11,798,106 are an obvious variant that contain substantially the same subject matter that overlaps method of IA as shown in table above in recapture relied on herein (italicized text in ‘614 is omitted in claim 1 herein).
Claim 1, as amended on 9/30/2025, herein
Claim 1 of ’614
A method for scheduling an order for one or more users, the method comprising the steps of:
A method for scheduling an order for a customer, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving, at one or more data processing units, at least one ordered menu selection;
receiving, at a data processor, at least one ordered menu selection;
transmitting, by the one or more data processing units one or more network interface devices connected to a network, the at least one ordered menu selection to a plurality of interconnected restaurant location servers to update an overall order queue used for selecting a restaurant location to prepare the at least one ordered menu selection;
transmitting, by the data processor using a network interface device connected to a network, the at least one ordered menu selection to a plurality of interconnected restaurant location servers that uses a feedback loop to update an overall order queue used for selecting a restaurant location to prepare the at least one ordered menu selection;
generating, at the one or more data processors, an estimated preparation time of the at least one ordered menu selection;
based on a determined geographic location of at least one delivery service and the selected restaurant location, assigning, by the one or more data processors, the at least one delivery service to deliver the at least one ordered menu selection from the selected restaurant location to one or more locations of the one or more users that made the at least one ordered menu selection;
sending, by the one or more data processors using the network interface device connected to the network, the estimated preparation time to the at least one delivery service;
and
transmitting tracking information of the at least one delivery service for presentation on a computing device of the user.
generating, at the data processor, an estimated preparation time of the at least one ordered menu selection;
based on a determined geographic location of at least one delivery service and the selected restaurant location, assigning, by the data processor, the at least one delivery service to deliver the at least one ordered menu selection from the selected restaurant location to a location of a user that made the at least one ordered menu selection;
sending, by the data processor using the network interface device connected to the network, the estimated preparation time to the at least one delivery service;
receiving, at the data processor, a request for starting to prepare the at least one ordered menu selection from the at least one delivery service; and
transmitting tracking information of the at least one delivery service for presentation on a computing device of the user.
Claims 10 and 16 herein contain similar limitations to claim 1 herein and claims 10 and 16 of ‘614 contain similar limitations to claim 1 of ‘614. Thus, for same reasons as claim 1 of ‘614 is an obvious variant of claim 1 herein, claims 10 and 16 are obvious variants of claims 10 and 16 of ‘614. Further, dependent claims 2-9, 11-15 and 17-20 of ‘614 recite similar limitations as claims 2-9, 11-15 and 17-20, as amended herein and thus is each an obvious variant for similar reasons as claims 1, 10 and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. US 2016/0244311 (hereafter Burks).
As per claims 1-4, 8 and 9, lacking evidence to the contrary, Burks discloses a method for scheduling an order for one or more users [see at least ¶0075 (e.g., The operating system 322 essentially controls the execution of other computer programs, such as the restaurant order generating application 318, and provides scheduling, input-output control, file and data management, memory management, and communication control and related services)], the method comprising the steps of:
receiving, at one or more data processing units, at least one ordered menu selection [see at least corresponding description and FIGS. 7F, 7G, 7H, 7I, 8, step 808 “Receive selection for menu items”, 17, step 1740 “User selects menu items”, 45a, element 8001a “Pick Items”];
transmitting, by the one or more data processing units [USING] one or more network interface devices connected to a network, the at least one ordered menu selection to a plurality of interconnected restaurant location servers to update an overall order queue used for selecting a restaurant location to prepare the at least one ordered menu selection [see at least corresponding description and FIGS 1, 6A, 6D, 21];
generating, at the one or more data processors [interpreted herein as the above recited “data processing units”], an estimated preparation time of at least one ordered menu selection [see at least ¶0005 (e.g., A local server computer located in proximity to the establishment generates instructions for processing the remote order received from the wireless communication interface), ¶0011 (e.g., the present invention is directed to a wireless mobile personal computer for enabling a customer to generate a restaurant order on the wireless mobile personal computer, comprising a restaurant order generating application configured to generate restaurant item selecting interface screens for generating the restaurant order comprising at least one restaurant item, to generate a machine-readable or radio transmittable representation of the generated restaurant order, a processor for executing the restaurant order generating application, a memory for storing the restaurant order generating application and selectable restaurant items, and a display for displaying the restaurant item selecting interface screens, the at least one restaurant items. The machine-readable representation of the generated order is an optical machine-readable representation. The machine-readable representation of the generated order is radio transmittable representation), ¶0012 (e.g., the wireless mobile personal computer having a processor for executing the restaurant order generating application, a memory for storing the restaurant order generating application and selectable restaurant items, and a display), ¶0013, and also illustrated in FIG. 2, presented below];
PNG
media_image1.png
602
1036
media_image1.png
Greyscale
based on a determined geographic location of at least one delivery service and the selected restaurant location, assigning, by the one or more data processors, the at least one delivery service to deliver the at least one ordered menu selection from the selected restaurant location to one or more locations of the one or more users that made the at least one ordered menu selection [see facts/discussion above regarding “receiving” and “transmitting” steps relied on herein and further see at least ¶0166 (e.g., Upon selecting checkout icon 1495, the user proceeds to a receipt and payment method setup screen 1501, such as that shown in FIG. 27. These screens may be separate in some embodiments, but are combined as shown here. Recall that payment method and receipt method, along with venue location and menu items, are the four primary order components required to submit an order to the OMS server 910. As used in this description, the term “receipt method” simply means the method of how the user will receive the products ordered. It does not suggest that, or reflect upon whether, the user will go to the products, or whether the products will come (e.g., such as via delivery) to the user. In the illustrated embodiment, the receipt methods offered are (1) in store, (2) drive thru, (3) curb side, and (4) delivery. Which options will actually be available may depend on various factors such as, but not limited to, the venue selection. This is one example of why it is preferred that the venue selection be made first among the four primary order components. In the quick service restaurant model used as an example in this description, “in store” would indicate a customer pick-up at the checkout counter, “drive-thru” would be handed out via a drive-thru lane, “curb side” would, as will be seen, allow for a user to park at the venue and receive their order without proceeding through a drive thru lane, and “delivery” would involve restaurant personnel or a third party vendor bringing the order to a designated location. In the event that a user selects delivery icon 1505, they would be prompted to designate such a location (not shown), which would then be validated by the system to ensure that delivery is available to that location. Selection of the “in store” icon 1502 would typically require the user to then designate whether they will be dining in or taking the order to go, though this option can be changed at the time of order check in), and as illustrated in FIG. 27, presented below];
PNG
media_image2.png
566
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
sending, by the one or more data processors using the network interface device connected to the network, the estimated preparation time to the at least one delivery service [see at least ¶0202 (e.g., at any time after the user has submitted the order, the user can log in to the OMS server 910 and view an order status screen (not shown) that shows the phase of the order preparation (e.g., awaiting preparation, being prepared, en route, etc.). This screen can also provide an estimated time of order arrival to help keep the user informed in the event of a delay)]; and
transmitting tracking information of the at least one delivery service for presentation on a computing device of the user [see at least facts/discussion above regarding “assigning” and “sending” steps that involve transmitting tracking information for order delivery fulfillment where the delivery service includes user/customer, order vendor venue or third party as order delivery fulfillment agent/service provider as discussed in Burks].
As per claim 2, Burks discloses receiving, at the data processor, a request for starting to prepare the at least one ordered menu selection from the at least one delivery service [see at least the abstract (e.g., an ordering app running on a mobile device, one or more central servers, one or more venue servers, one or more ordering apps, plug-ins, kiosks, point of sale systems, beacons, pucks, tents, and automated appliances cooperate to prepare orders for a customer), and ¶0003 (e.g., systems and methods for receiving and managing remotely placed orders, particularly orders for goods that must be prepared within a short time of being received. In the primary example, the present invention relates to a system (and its associated apparatuses and methods of use) that enables remote entry and processing of an order for time-sensitive goods (such as food from a quick service restaurant) at a particular venue (e.g., a restaurant) in a manner such that the order is verified and submitted for processing upon arrival at the venue)] wherein the request received from the at least one assigned delivery service is transmitted with an estimated arrival time for pick-up of the at least one assigned delivery service [see at least ¶0202 (e.g., at any time after the user has submitted the order, the user can log in to the OMS server 910 and view an order status screen (not shown) that shows the phase of the order preparation (e.g., awaiting preparation, being prepared, en route, etc.). This screen can also provide an estimated time of order arrival to help keep the user informed in the event of a delay)].
As per claim 3, Burks discloses the step of comparing, at the one or more data processors, the estimated arrival time for the pick-up with the estimated preparation time of the at least one ordered menu selection [see at least ¶0216 (e.g., OMS server 910 compares the location of the customer to the virtual geofences. This approach enables the servers to obscure the exact boundaries of the geofences by performing the comparisons at the remote servers), and ¶0217 (e.g., ordering app 1118 running on the customer's mobile device 940 compares the customer's current location to the virtual boundaries of the geofences)].
As per claim 4, Burks discloses wherein when the estimated arrival time for the pick-up is less than or equal to the estimated preparation time of the at least one ordered menu selection, the at least one ordered menu selection is immediately started to prepare for the pick-up [] see at least the abstract (e.g., an ordering app running on a mobile device, one or more central servers, one or more venue servers, one or more ordering apps, plug-ins, kiosks, point of sale systems, beacons, pucks, tents, and automated appliances cooperate to prepare orders for a customer), and ¶0003 (e.g., systems and methods for receiving and managing remotely placed orders, particularly orders for goods that must be prepared within a short time of being received. In the primary example, the present invention relates to a system (and its associated apparatuses and methods of use) that enables remote entry and processing of an order for time-sensitive goods (such as food from a quick service restaurant) at a particular venue (e.g., a restaurant) in a manner such that the order is verified and submitted for processing upon arrival at the venue)]. Burks further discloses an accurate prediction of the delivery time may be updated based on the location of the delivery personnel [see at least ¶0202].
As per claim 5, Burks discloses wherein when the estimated arrival time for the pick-up is greater than the estimated preparation time of the at least one ordered menu selection, the at least one ordered menu selection is started to prepare for the pick-up within a time determined by a difference between the estimated arrival time and the estimated preparation time [see at least ¶0132 (e.g., Regarding menus, it will be understood that a menu is simply a list of products or services that is available from a vendor. While this invention is primarily described herein in the context of a menu for a quick service restaurant, it is equally applicable to the ordering of goods or services other than food and beverages from other types of vendors—particularly where the vendors offer their goods and services at several different locations, and where the availability and pricing of those goods and services vary to some degree from one location to another, or where the goods or services are time sensitive, such that it is optimal for an order not to be released for preparation until near to the time when the goods or services are to be received. Accordingly, where the claims are not specifically limited to food or beverage menus for use in ordering from quick service restaurants, such limitations should not be read into the claims)].
As per claim 5, Burks discloses wherein the at least one delivery system includes a delivery system with a driver [see at least ¶0166 (e.g., Upon selecting checkout icon 1495, the user proceeds to a receipt and payment method setup screen 1501, such as that shown in FIG. 27. These screens may be separate in some embodiments, but are combined as shown here. Recall that payment method and receipt method, along with venue location and menu items, are the four primary order components required to submit an order to the OMS server 910. As used in this description, the term “receipt method” simply means the method of how the user will receive the products ordered. It does not suggest that, or reflect upon whether, the user will go to the products, or whether the products will come (e.g., such as via delivery) to the user. In the illustrated embodiment, the receipt methods offered are (1) in store, (2) drive thru, (3) curb side, and (4) delivery. Which options will actually be available may depend on various factors such as, but not limited to, the venue selection. This is one example of why it is preferred that the venue selection be made first among the four primary order components. In the quick service restaurant model used as an example in this description, “in store” would indicate a customer pick-up at the checkout counter, “drive-thru” would be handed out via a drive-thru lane, “curb side” would, as will be seen, allow for a user to park at the venue and receive their order without proceeding through a drive thru lane, and “delivery” would involve restaurant personnel or a third party vendor bringing the order to a designated location.].
As per claim 8-9, Burks discloses wherein the estimated preparation time is determined based on factors including a complexity of the order, a skill level of one or more staff members preparing the order, or some combination thereof to generate the estimated preparation time of the at least one ordered menu selection and wherein the at least one ordered menu selection comprises one or more of a food selection and a beverage selection [see at least ¶0132 (e.g., Regarding menus, it will be understood that a menu is simply a list of products or services that is available from a vendor. While this invention is primarily described herein in the context of a menu for a quick service restaurant, it is equally applicable to the ordering of goods or services other than food and beverages from other types of vendors—particularly where the vendors offer their goods and services at several different locations, and where the availability and pricing of those goods and services vary to some degree from one location to another, or where the goods or services are time sensitive, such that it is optimal for an order not to be released for preparation until near to the time when the goods or services are to be received. Accordingly, where the claims are not specifically limited to food or beverage menus for use in ordering from quick service restaurants, such limitations should not be read into the claims)].
Claims 10-15, which are parallel to claims 1-6 in terms of scope and limitations, share similar characteristics as previously discussed and examined. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claims 1-9. The similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 1-6 above].
Claims 16-20, which are parallel to claims 1-6 in terms of scope and limitations, share similar characteristics, as previously discussed and examined. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claims 1-6. The similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 1-6 above].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. US 2016/0244311 (hereafter Burks) in view of U.S. Pub. No. US 2013/0024299 (hereafter (Wong). As per claim 5, in the alternative, facts/discussion above show Burks discloses all elements per claimed invention, but to the extent a person of skill in the art (a POSITA or an artisan) would interpret Burks does not explicitly disclose “wherein when the estimated arrival time for the pick-up is greater than the estimated preparation time of the at least one ordered menu selection, the at least one ordered menu selection is started to prepare for the pick-up within a time determined by a difference between the estimated arrival time and the estimated preparation time”, this feature is well known as shown by related reference Wong. Wong discloses a system and a method for an online food ordering; and more particularly to an online food ordering system and method wherein when the estimated arrival time for the pick-up is greater than the estimated preparation time of the at least one ordered menu selection, the at least one ordered menu selection is started to prepare for the pick-up within a time determined by a difference between the estimated arrival time and the estimated preparation time [¶0029 (The mobile-based application generates a menu product order 54 from the user's choices and calculates the user's estimated time of arrival 56. The order information and payment data, along with the user's estimated time of arrival, is transmitted to the restaurant 58. The restaurant receives the order and payment information and the user's estimated time of arrival 60 and stores it in the back-end data server 18… The back-end data server 18 continually compares the product preparation time to the user's estimated time of arrival 66 and when the product preparation time equals the user's estimated time of arrival, the back-end data server 18 transmits the order information 68 to the kitchen 20) where the transmittal to the kitchen is for product preparation to start such that it completes within/prior to time of arrival; also see FIG. 5 copied below].
PNG
media_image3.png
698
552
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wong is deemed herein to be relevant prior art due to either being in the same field of endeavor or being reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the Applicant was faced. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The level of ordinary skill in the art is shown by the applied art herein. Since Burks and Wong each regard an online ordering method and system, in consideration consistent with US Supreme Court decision in KSR that ‘known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art’, in this case, it would have been obvious to an artisan to add “wherein when the estimated arrival time for the pick-up is greater than the estimated preparation time of the at least one ordered menu selection, the at least one ordered menu selection is started to prepare for the pick-up within a time determined by a difference between the estimated arrival time and the estimated preparation time” as disclosed by Wong to improve the method and system of Burks to provide a mobile-based voiceless drive-through ordering system and method that enhances quality, efficiency and customers' satisfaction by providing menu information in advance, allowing the customer to make an order without any time pressure, and removing a degree of human error in the order-taking process to minimize the possibility of wrong order delivering to the customer [see Wong: ¶0013].
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. US 2016/0244311 (hereafter Burks) in view of U.S. Pub. No. US 2015/0227890 (hereafter Bednarek) or U.S. Pat. No. 10,321,263 (hereafter AlKarmi). As per claim 6-7, Burks discloses in ¶0166 that in the quick service restaurant model used as an example in this description, “in store” would indicate a customer pick-up at the checkout counter, “drive-thru” would be handed out via a drive-thru lane, “curb side” would, as will be seen, allow for a user to park at the venue and receive their order without proceeding through a drive thru lane, and “delivery” would involve restaurant personnel or a third party vendor bringing the order to a designated location (this is interpreted as involving recited “a delivery system with a driver”). But, Burks does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one delivery service includes a driverless delivery system, and wherein the driverless delivery system sends the request for starting to prepare the at least one ordered menu selection when the driverless delivery system is in route for the pick-up, as recited in claims 6-7. However, this feature is known as shown by related references Bednarek and AlKarmi.
For instance, related reference Bednarek discloses wherein the at least one delivery service includes a driverless delivery system and/or a delivery system with a driver, and wherein the driverless delivery system sends the request for starting to prepare the at least one ordered menu selection when the driverless delivery system is in route for the pick-up. For instance, Bednareck discloses a list based infrastructure that supports a distributed delivery system in which independent TRUSTED DRIVERS act as couriers to deliver orders, packages and parcels from vendors to customers. Naturally, a list based logistics engine supported TRUSTED DRIVER courier system may be used for other purposes as well. Depending on the geographic location and traffic conditions, the term "trusted driver" could encompass couriers using self-powered cycles, motorized cycles, automobiles and trucks, aircraft, watercraft and even walking couriers. In most instances, however, the TRUSTED DRIVERS will be operating motorized vehicles equipped with a smart device capable of digital communication and including position locating and reporting equipment. In this description of a distributed distribution system using trusted drivers, the currently preferred trusted driver is a human driver that is registered with the system and has been vetted to ensure reliability and safety. Currently, however, there are efforts to develop driverless car systems that operate on designated routes. To the extent such a system for driverless vehicles is implemented, the "trusted driver" would also encompass the controller of a driverless vehicle controlled by the system [see at least ¶0223].
While, related reference AlKarmi similarly discloses autonomous or driverless delivery systems [5:27-67, (the deliverer(s) 110 and/or the deliverer device(s) 112 may include unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and/or other autonomous vehicles (e.g., a driverless car) that deliver the food items 126 to a physical location associated with the customer 114. Each deliverer 110 may be associated with a corresponding deliverer device 112, such as a laptop computer, a mobile telephone, a tablet computer, etc. Via the deliverer device 112, and possibly via a mobile application that resides on the deliverer device 112 and that is associated with the service provider 102, the deliverer 110 may receive/send various types of information regarding the pick-up and delivery of food items 126, as will be discussed in additional detail herein)].
Bednarek and AlKarmi is each deemed herein to be relevant prior art due to either being in the same field of endeavor or being reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the Applicant was faced. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The level of ordinary skill in the art is shown by the applied art herein. Since Burks, Bednarek and AlKarmi each regard an online ordering method and system, in consideration consistent with US Supreme Court decision in KSR that ‘known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art’, in this case, it would have been obvious to an artisan to add a driverless delivery system, and wherein the driverless delivery system sends the request for starting to prepare the at least one ordered menu selection when the driverless delivery system is in route for the pick-up as disclosed by Bednarek or AlKarmi to improve the method and system of Burks to provide coordination of segmented order deliveries in a segmented order distributed distribution system [see Bednarek: abstract; see AlKarmi, abstract].
Prior or Concurrent Proceedings
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the 12,277,614 patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Information Material to Patentability
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark Sager whose telephone number is (571) 272-4454. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 6:30 AM - 3 PM, 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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571) 272-3744. 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.
/MARK SAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/JEFFREY D CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992