Patent Application 18130896 - SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING ALTERNATIVE - Rejection
Appearance
Patent Application 18130896 - SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING ALTERNATIVE
Title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING ALTERNATIVE CONTENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Application Information
- Invention Title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING ALTERNATIVE CONTENT RECOMMENDATIONS
- Application Number: 18130896
- Submission Date: 2025-05-15T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2023-04-04T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2023-04-04T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 705
- National Sub-Class: 026700
- Examiner Employee Number: 74912
- Art Unit: 3688
- Tech Center: 3600
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 1
- 103 Rejections: 3
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
- US 0242106đ
- US 0271826đ
- US 0196580đ
- US 0193552đ
Office Action Text
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 filed June 23, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) with respect to reference A28, which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein with respect to reference A28 has not been considered. The copy of reference A28 which was provided includes only a small portion of each page of the reference. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of the USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), which is a two-prong inquiry. In prong 1, it must be determined whether the claim recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon, and if so, in prong 2, it must be determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea in step 2a, it must additionally be determined in step 2b whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. MPEP §2106.04. STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method for recommending items, as in independent Claim 1 and in the claims that depend therefrom. Such methods fall under the statutory category of âprocessâ. Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category. Step 2A, prong 1. The invention is directed to a method for recommending items, which is a sales method and, hence, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As such, the claims include an abstract idea. When considering the limitations individually and as a whole the limitations directed to the abstract idea are: âA âŠ-implemented method for obtaining one or more recommendation candidates for items of content available via a content distribution system, the method comprisingâ: âobtaining user data for a selected user, wherein the user data comprise or represent user activity and/or content metadata associated with user activityâ; âgenerating or otherwise obtaining relationship information for at least some content metadata associated with the available content, wherein the relationship information is based on at least content engagement data for a plurality of users of the content distribution systemâ; âgenerating further user data from the user data using the relationship information so that the further user data comprises or represents alternative content metadata that are distinct or at most overlap with the content metadata associated with the user activityâ; âperforming a content recommendation process using at least the further user data and content information for the available content to generate one or more content recommendation candidates for the userâ. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. a generic computing system performing generic functions including generic processing of data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. MPEP §2106.04. Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the Mayo framework, the examiner holds that the claims are directed to concepts identified as abstract. STEP 2B. Because the claims include one or more abstract ideas, the examiner now proceeds to Step 2B of the analysis, in which the examiner considers if the claims include individually or as an ordered combination limitations that are "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. This includes analysis as to whether there is an improvement to either the "computer itself," "another technology," the "technical field," or significantly more than what is "well-understood, routine, or conventional" in the related arts. The instant application includes in claim 1 additional limitations to those deemed to be abstract ideas. When taken individually, these limitations are âcomputerâ. In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to above mentioned abstract idea. Technical functions such as sending, receiving, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology. The individual limitations are recited at a high level and do not provide any specific technology or techniques to perform the functions claimed. Looking to MPEP §2106.05(d), based on court decisions well understood, routine and conventional computer functions or mere instruction and/or insignificant activity have been identified to include: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321,120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TU Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); O/P Techs., /no., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F,3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir, 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPG2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink," (emphasis added)}; Insignificant intermediate or post solution activity -See Bilski v. Kappos, 581 U.S. 593, 611 -12, 95 USPQ2d 1001,1010 (2010) (well-known random analysis techniques to establish the inputs of an equation were token extra-solution activity); In Bilski referring to Flook, where Flook determined that an insignificant post-solution activity does not makes an otherwise patent ineligible claim patent eligible. In Bilski, the court added to Flook that pre-solution (such as data gathering) and insignificant step in the middle of a process (such as receiving user input) to be equally ineffective. The specification and Claim does not provide any specific process with respect to the display output that would transform the function beyond what is well understood. Like as found in Electric Power Group, Bilski, the technical process to implement the input and display functions are conventional and well understood. In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add "significantly more" by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to the abstract idea. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using well-understood and conventional functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an unconventional non-routine functions for authorizing the timing of a payment and to activate a display screen based on a trigger or camera functions that could then be pointed to as being "significantly more" than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, examiner was not able to identify any "unconventional" steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts. Further, note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computing devices. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computing device and require no more than a generic computing devices to perform generic functions. CONCLUSION. It is therefore determined that the instant application not only represents an abstract idea identified as such based on criteria defined by the Courts and on USPTO examination guidelines, but also lacks the capability to bring about "Improvements to another technology or technical field" (Alice), bring about "Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself" (Alice), "Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine" (Bilski), "Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing" (Diehr), "Add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field" (Mayo), "Add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application" (Mayo), or contain "Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment" (Alice), transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by humans into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (McRO), or limitations directed to improvements in computer related technology, including claims directed to software (Enfish). Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-18, which impose additional limitations, also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. Claim 11 recites âmachine learning model[s]â, while claim 18 recites a ânetworkâ and an âapplication programming interfaceâ. These are generic elements. In reference to claims 2-8 and 10-18, these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. The dependent claims have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1; where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, "addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary." Content Extraction &. Transmission LLC v, Wells Fargo Bank, Natl Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, applicant is invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. Claim 19 recites âprocessing circuitryâ. Claim 20 recites a âcomputer-readable mediumâ. These are generic elements. Claims 19 and 20 are independent claims that are otherwise similar to claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. 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 â (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. Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0271826 A1 (hereinafter âLeeâ). With respect to claims 1, 19, and 20, Lee discloses âA computer-implemented method for obtaining one or more recommendation candidates for items of content available via a content distribution system, the method comprisingâ: Lee, abstract; âobtaining user data for a selected user, wherein the user data comprise or represent user activity and/or content metadata associated with user activity;â Lee ¶¶ 0041, 0065 (user viewing data are logged and used for recommendations); âgenerating or otherwise obtaining relationship information for at least some content metadata associated with the available content, wherein the relationship information is based on at least content engagement data for a plurality of users of the content distribution systemâ; Lee ¶¶ 0065-0068 (user profile and buddy list generated using viewing data comprises relationship information); âgenerating further user data from the user data using the relationship information so that the further user data comprises or represents alternative content metadata that are distinct or at most overlap with the content metadata associated with the user activityâ; Lee ¶¶ 0019, 0042, 0057, 0067-0068 (viewing data of buddies is used to generate alternative content metadata); âperforming a content recommendation process using at least the further user data and content information for the available content to generate one or more content recommendation candidates for the userâ. Lee ¶¶ 0019, 0042, 0057, 0062, 0067-0068 (viewing data of buddies is used to recommend items). With respect to claim 2, Lee discloses âwherein the content metadata comprises one or more properties obtained or selected from a predetermined set of properties and wherein the relationship information comprises information about relationships between said predetermined set of properties and wherein the alternative content metadata comprises one or more alternative properties obtained and/or selected from the predetermined set of propertiesâ. Lee ¶ 0078 (a wide variety of predetermined properties are used). With respect to claim 3, Lee discloses âwherein performing the content recommendation process using the user data would generate a reference set of candidates and wherein at least one of: a) the generated set of candidates matches with the user data to a lesser degree than the reference set: b) the generated set of candidates has more metadata or metadata items that are not associated with the user activity than the reference set; c) the metadata that is common between the generated set and the reference set of candidates has a lower associated weight for the generated set than for the reference setâ. Lee ¶¶ 0019, 0042, 0057, 0062, 0067-0068 (items recommended using buddy data match with user viewing data to a lesser degree than items recommended using just user viewing data). With respect to claim 4, Lee discloses âfurther comprising monitoring user activity including identifying content selected for viewing by the user of the user device and generating or updating the user data using metadata associated with the selected content wherein the content metadata of the user data is associated with selected items, and wherein the alternative content metadata is obtaining using relationship informationâ. Lee ¶¶ 0019, 0042, 0057, 0062, 0067-0068 (content is identified using user viewing data and buddy viewing data). With respect to claim 5, Lee discloses âwherein the metadata represents and/or is indicative of one or more properties comprise content parameters, properties and/or characteristics, such as programme title, time, duration, content type, programme categorisation, actor names, genre, release data, episode number, series number, style, mood, language and themeâ. Lee ¶ 0078 (a wide variety of predetermined properties are used). With respect to claim 7, Lee discloses âwherein the relationship information includes distance and/or separation information for the content metadata associated with the available content, and wherein the method comprises selecting a desired degree of distance or separation and generating the further user data based on the desired degree of distance or separationâ. Lee ¶¶ 0046, 0073, 0082 (generating one or more programs for the recommendation result in connection with a preference degree correlation between the user profile and the buddy information). With respect to claim 8, Lee discloses âwherein the user data represent or are indicative of user 5 preferences and/or user interests associated with and/or derived based on user activity and wherein the generated further user data is representative of user interests and/or preferences that are different to or at most overlap with the one or more selected user interests and/or preferencesâ. Lee ¶¶ 0019, 0042, 0057, 0062, 0067-0068, 0078 (items recommended using buddy data match with user viewing data to a lesser degree than items recommended using just user viewing data). With respect to claim 10, Lee discloses âwherein the user data comprises or is based on user action data representing previous user actions, optionally content selection, viewing or recording actions, user language data and/or episode data and/or rating data and/or content metadata representing properties of content viewed, recorded or selected by a userâ. Lee ¶¶ 0041, 0065 (user viewing data are logged and used for recommendations). With respect to claim 12, Lee discloses âwherein generating the further user data using the relationship information comprises applying a mapping to the one or more properties associated with the content, wherein the mapping is based on content engagement data for a plurality of usersâ. Lee ¶¶ 0067, 0080. With respect to claim 13, Lee discloses âwherein generating the further user data using the relationship information comprises applying an iterative mapping process to the user data to iteratively generate alternative content metadataâ. Lee ¶¶ 0067, 0080 (mapping is performed iteratively to user data and user data combined with buddy data). With respect to claim 14, Lee discloses âwherein the user data is stored in a user profile and wherein the content recommendation process is configured to generate recommendation candidates based on the user profile, wherein generating the further user data further comprise performing a user profile expansion and/or modification process on the user profile using the relationship information to generate an expanded user profile using at least the alternative content metadata and wherein the method comprises using the expanded user profile to generate the content item recommendationâ. Lee ¶¶ 0019, 0042, 0057, 0062, 0067-0068 (user viewing data is used to generate user profile, which is expanded using buddy data). With respect to claim 16, Lee discloses âwherein the relationship information comprises learned relationships between a set of predetermined categories in the user data, wherein the learned relationship are derived based on at least one on content engagement dataâ. Lee ¶¶ 0019, 0042, 0057, 0062, 0067-0068, 0078 (items recommended based on relationship between user viewing data and predetermined categories). With respect to clam 17, Lee discloses âwherein the content recommendation process is further dependent on a parameter indicative of a desired degree of diversity for the generated one or more content recommendation candidates for the user relative to one or content recommendation candidates generated using the user data and wherein the content recommendation process.â. Lee ¶¶ 0019, 0042, 0057, 0062, 0067-0068, 0078 (combination of user viewing data with buddy viewing data provides a degree of diversity). With respect to claim 18, Lee discloses âwherein performing the content recommendation operation comprises receiving a request over a network for one or more recommendation candidates and sending the generated one or more recommendation candidates as a response over a network, wherein the request and response are received and sent using a predefined application programming interfaceâ. Lee ¶ 0074 (one skilled in the art would understand an interface module to include an API). 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. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0193552 A1 (hereinafter âTurkelsonâ). With respect to claim 6, Lee discloses âwherein the content metadata are selected from a predetermined set of properties that comprises ⊠meta data to represent items of content, optionally, wherein the ⊠includes enriched versions of metadata obtained for items of contentâ. Lee ¶¶ 0019, 0042, 0057, 0062, 0067-0068. Lee does not explicitly disclose an ontology. Turkelson discloses obtaining stored images depicting objects, where each image depicts an object from an object ontology including 10,000 or more objects. Turkelson ¶¶ 0019, 0031, 0041, 0059. Lee in view of Turkelson therefore suggests âwherein the content metadata are selected from a predetermined set of properties that comprises a stored ontology that includes at least 10,000 features that can be used as meta data to represent items of content, optionally, wherein the ontology includes enriched versions of metadata obtained for items of contentâ. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the stored ontology feature as taught by Turkelson in the method of Lee with the motivation of providing a large data set for training in order to improve accuracy. Turkelson ¶ 0019. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0242106 A1 (hereinafter âShamirâ). With respect to claim 11, Lee discloses generating the further user data and the plurality of content recommendation candidates. Lee ¶¶ 0019, 0042, 0057, 0062, 0067-0068. Lee does not explicitly disclose a machine learning model. Shamir discloses receiving a digital component request. A first ML model outputs scores indicating a likelihood of a positive outcome for digital components. Input data is provided to a second ML model and includes feature values for a subset of digital components that were selected based on the output scores. The second ML model is trained to output an engagement prediction and/or ranking of digital components based at least in part on feature values of digital components, and produces a second output the subset of digital components as the recommendations. Shamir ¶¶ 0046-0060, 0074, 0075, fig. 2. Lee in view of Shamir therefore suggests âwherein the relationship information is represented as and/or forms part of a first machine learning model and wherein the content recommendation request is represented as part of a second machine learning model such that the method comprises: applying the first machine learning model to at least part of the user data to generate the further user data; applying the second machine learning model to the further user data to generate the plurality of content recommendation candidatesâ. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the machine learning feature as taught by Shamir in the method of Lee with the motivation of optimizing the recommendations. Shamir ¶¶ 0003-0008. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0196580 A1 (hereinafter âHongâ). With respect to claim 15, Lee discloses âwherein the recommendation process is based on a combination of the user data and the further user data and wherein the method comprises controlling a ⊠between the user data and the further user dataâ. Lee ¶¶ 0019, 0042, 0057, 0062, 0067-0068. Lee does not explicitly disclose a weighting. Hong discloses controlling a weighting between a first recommended content items and a second recommended content items by applying recommendation weight values depending on categories of the first and second recommended content items. Hong ¶¶ 0134, 0135, 0137, 0197, 0198, 0200. Lee in view of Hong therefore suggests âwherein the recommendation process is based on a combination of the user data and the further user data and wherein the method comprises controlling a weighting between the user data and the further user dataâ. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the weighting feature as taught by Hong in the method of Lee with the motivation of providing greater significance to more important properties in making recommendations. Hong ¶¶ 0134, 0135, 0137, 0197, 0198, 0200. 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 âright to excludeâ 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5-16, and 18-20 of copending Application No. 18/130,893(reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious over the claims of the reference application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN D CIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-6:30. 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 examinerâs supervisor, Kelly Campen can be reached at (571) 272-6740. 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. ETHAN D. CIVAN Primary Examiner Art Unit 3688 /ETHAN D CIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688