The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 11 November 2024. THIS ACTION IS FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
There is no art rejection for claims 1-9.
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.
Judicial Exception
Claims 1-11 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
With regards to claim 1, the claim recites a method, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “(a) generating an external model to predict said binary target variable with external factors; (b) running said external model to generate external forecasts of said binary target variable; (c) generating a separate supervised learning model …. (d) applying said external forecasts from said external model as a fixed input to said supervised learning model to eliminate colinearity between said external factors and said internal behavior factors of said target variable; and (e) forecasting performance of said target variable based upon said supervised learning model, wherein future forecasts from said external model and said internal behavior factors create a forecast of the binary target variable”, which, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the possibility of implementing by general computer, the claimed in the limitation citied above can be performed by a mind (e.g., a human financial analyst could analyze external & internal factors to generate / combine / apply models based on math calculations to make forecast), with possible aid of paper & pen and/or calculator. That is, other than the recitation of generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements: (a) possible implementing with general computer (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f); (b) “having inputs for receiving internal behavior factors” (insignificant extra solution activity, MPEP.2106.05(g). For (a), it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). For (b), these steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process as described in MPEP.2106.05(g). Accordingly, there is no additional element integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the possibility of using a generic computing component for executing the steps amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “having inputs for receiving internal behavior factors” is insignificant extra solution activity, MPEP.2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Hence the additional elements do not add anything significant to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 2, the claim recites a method, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “(a) generating an external time series model to predict said binary target variable with external factors; (b) running said external time series to generate external forecasts of said binary target variable; (c) generating a separate supervised learning model defining an internal behavioral model ….; (d) applying said external forecasts as a fixed input to said supervised learning model to eliminate colinearity between said external factors and said internal behavior factors of said target variable;(e) forecasting performance of said binary target variable based upon said supervised learning model, wherein future forecasts from said external model forecasts and said internal behavior factors create a forecast of the binary target variable”, which, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the possibility of implementing by general computer, the claimed in the limitation citied above can be performed by a mind (e.g., a human financial analyst could analyze external & internal factors to generate / combine / apply models based on math calculations to make forecast), with possible aid of paper & pen and/or calculator. That is, other than the recitation of generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements: (a) possible implementing with general computer (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f); (b) “having inputs for receiving internal behavior factors” (insignificant extra solution activity, MPEP.2106.05(g). For (a), it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). For (b), these steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process as described in MPEP.2106.05(g). Accordingly, there is no additional element integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the possibility of using a generic computing component for executing the steps amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “having inputs for receiving internal behavior factors” is insignificant extra solution activity, MPEP.2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Hence the additional elements do not add anything significant to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 3, the claim recites a method, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “(a) generating an external model of age dynamics of said binary target variable to predict said binary target variable with external factors; (b) running said external model to generate external forecasts of said binary target variable; (c) generating a separate supervised learning mode variable ….; and (d) applying said external forecasts as a fixed input to said supervised learning model to eliminate colinearity between said external factors and said internal behavior factors of said target variable; and (e) forecasting performance of said binary target variable based on said supervised learning model, wherein said external forecasts and said internal behavior factors create a forecast of the binary target variable”, which, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the possibility of implementing by general computer, the claimed in the limitation citied above can be performed by a mind (e.g., a human financial analyst could analyze external & internal factors to generate / combine / apply models based on math calculations to make forecast), with possible aid of paper & pen and/or calculator. That is, other than the recitation of generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements: (a) possible implementing with general computer (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f); (b) “having inputs for receiving internal behavior factors” (insignificant extra solution activity, MPEP.2106.05(g). For (a), it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). For (b), these steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process as described in MPEP.2106.05(g). Accordingly, there is no additional element integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the possibility of using a generic computing component for executing the steps amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “having inputs for receiving internal behavior factors” is insignificant extra solution activity, MPEP.2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Hence the additional elements do not add anything significant to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 4, the claim recites a method, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “(a) generating an age-period-cohort behavioral model to predict said binary target variable; (b) running said model to generate forecasts of said binary target variable; (c) generating a separate supervised learning model ….; (d) applying said forecasts to said supervised learning model as a fixed input to eliminate colinearity between said external factors and said internal behavior factors of said target variable; (e) forecasting performance of said binary target variable based on said supervised learning model, wherein said forecasts”, which, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the possibility of implementing by general computer, the claimed in the limitation citied above can be performed by a mind (e.g., a human financial analyst could analyze external & internal factors to generate / combine / apply models based on math calculations to make forecast), with possible aid of paper & pen and/or calculator. That is, other than the recitation of generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements: (a) possible implementing with general computer (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f); (b) “having inputs for receiving internal behavior factors” (insignificant extra solution activity, MPEP.2106.05(g). For (a), it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). For (b), these steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process as described in MPEP.2106.05(g). Accordingly, there is no additional element integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the possibility of using a generic computing component for executing the steps amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “having inputs for receiving internal behavior factors” is insignificant extra solution activity, MPEP.2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Hence the additional elements do not add anything significant to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 5, the claim recites a method, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “(a) generating an external behavior model of said continuous target variable with external factors; (b) running said external model to generate external forecasts of said continuous target variable; (c) adjusting said continuous target variable based upon said external forecasts defining an adjusted continuous target variable; (d) generating a separate supervised learning model having inputs for receiving internal behavior factors to eliminate colinearity between said external factors and said internal behavior factors of said target variable; (e) applying said adjusted target variable as a fixed input to said supervised learning model; (f) forecasting performance of said adjusted target variable based upon a said supervised learning model, wherein said adjusted target variable and said internal behavior factors create a forecast of the performance of said adjusted target variable”, which, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the possibility of implementing by general computer, the claimed in the limitation citied above can be performed by a mind (e.g., a human financial analyst could analyze external & internal factors to generate / combine / apply models based on math calculations to make forecast), with possible aid of paper & pen and/or calculator. That is, other than the recitation of generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites possible implementing with general computer, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, there is no additional element integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the possibility of using a generic computing component for executing the steps amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). Hence the additional elements do not add anything significant to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 6, the claim recites a method, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “(a) generating an external time series behavioral model of external factors to capture time dynamics relevant to said continuous target variable; (b) running said external model to generate external forecasts of said continuous target variable; (c) adjusting said continuous target variable based upon said external forecasts defining an adjusted target variable; (d) generating a separate supervised learning model having inputs for receiving internal behavior factors to eliminate colinearity between said external factors and said internal behavior factors of said target variable;(e) applying said adjusted target variable as a fixed input to said supervised learning model;(f) forecasting performance of said adjusted target variable based upon a said supervised learning model, wherein said upon said internal behavior factors and said adjusted target variable provide a forecast of the performance of said adjusted target variable”, which, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the possibility of implementing by general computer, the claimed in the limitation citied above can be performed by a mind (e.g., a human financial analyst could analyze external & internal factors to generate / combine / apply models based on math calculations to make forecast), with possible aid of paper & pen and/or calculator. That is, other than the recitation of generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites possible implementing with general computer, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, there is no additional element integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the possibility of using a generic computing component for executing the steps amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). Hence the additional elements do not add anything significant to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 7, the claim recites a method, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “(a) generating an external behavioral model of external factors to capture age dynamics relevant to said continuous target variable; (b) running said external model to generate external forecasts of said continuous target variable; (c) adjusting the continuous target variable based upon said external forecasts defining an adjusted continuous target variable; and (d) generating a separate supervised learning model having inputs for receiving internal behavioral factors to eliminate colinearity between said external factors and said internal behavior factors of said target variable; (e) applying said adjusted target variable as a fixed input to said supervised learning model; (f) forecasting the performance of said adjusted target variable based upon said separate supervised learning model, wherein said adjusted target variable and said internal behavior factors to provide a forecast of the performance of said adjusted target variable”, which, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the possibility of implementing by general computer, the claimed in the limitation citied above can be performed by a mind (e.g., a human financial analyst could analyze external & internal factors to generate / combine / apply models based on math calculations to make forecast), with possible aid of paper & pen and/or calculator. That is, other than the recitation of generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites possible implementing with general computer, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, there is no additional element integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the possibility of using a generic computing component for executing the steps amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). Hence the additional elements do not add anything significant to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 8, the claim recites a method, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “(a) generating an age-period-cohort behavioral behavior model to capture age and time dynamics relevant to said continuous target variable; (b) running said model to generate external forecasts of said continuous target variable;(c) adjusting the continuous target variable based upon the external age-period-cohort factors defining an adjusted continuous target variable; and (d) a separate supervised learning model having inputs for receiving internal behavioral factors to eliminate colinearity between said external factors and said internal behavior factors of said target variable; (e) applying said adjusted target variable as a fixed input to said supervised learning model; (f) forecasting the performance of said adjusted target variable adjusted target variable and said internal behavior factors to provide a forecast of the performance of said adjusted target variable”, which, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the possibility of implementing by general computer, the claimed in the limitation citied above can be performed by a mind (e.g., a human financial analyst could analyze external & internal factors to generate / combine / apply models based on math calculations to make forecast), with possible aid of paper & pen and/or calculator. That is, other than the recitation of generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites possible implementing with general computer, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, there is no additional element integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the possibility of using a generic computing component for executing the steps amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). Hence the additional elements do not add anything significant to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 9, the claim recites a method, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “(a) generating an external behavioral model of external factors to predict said binary target variable with external forecasts; (b) running said external model to generate external forecasts of said binary target variable; (c) generating a neural network defining an internal behavior model …. ; (d) applying said external forecasts as a fixed input to said neural network to eliminate colinearity between said external factors and said internal behavior factors of said target variable; (e) forecasting performance of said target variable based on a said external forecasts and said internal behavior factors to create a forecast of the binary target variable”, which, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the possibility of implementing by general computer, the claimed in the limitation citied above can be performed by a mind (e.g., a human financial analyst could analyze external & internal factors to generate / combine / apply models based on math calculations to make forecast), with possible aid of paper & pen and/or calculator. That is, other than the recitation of generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements: (a) possible implementing with general computer (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f); (b) “for receiving internal behavior factors and said external model as a fixed input” (insignificant extra solution activity, MPEP.2106.05(g). For (a), it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). For (b), these steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process as described in MPEP.2106.05(g). Accordingly, there is no additional element integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the possibility of using a generic computing component for executing the steps amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “for receiving internal behavior factors and said external model as a fixed input” is insignificant extra solution activity, MPEP.2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Hence the additional elements do not add anything significant to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 1 November 2024 has been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejections,
(1)Applicant argued that (p.8)
PNG
media_image1.png
853
1178
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
164
1087
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
258
1111
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner replies: As stated in the 101 rejection section, the amended claims are directed to prediction model processing which could be performed by human, hence it is directed to an abstract idea. Human can handle mathematical calculation including non-linear functions like exponential function, which has processed by human long before computer was invented. Learning models, based on BRI, are data prediction models which are abstract data processing models that can be processed by human mind. Applicant did not identify any additional element providing anything significantly more to the abstract idea. 101 rejection is maintained.
(2) To overcome 101 issues, suggest Applicant to include additional inventive concept elements into claims: (1) to show integration into a practical application; and/or (2) that is not practical for human mind to process and not WURC.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/ 11/18/2024
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights