4DETAILED 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 .
Claims 21-40 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14th/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant Argument #1:
On p. 5 of the Office Action the Office improperly relies on just the type of overbroad section 101 rejection criticized by the ARP. In particular, the Office improperly ignores many of Applicant's particularly-recited features and instead reduces Applicant's feature to "produce prediction results," which clearly improperly ignores the many recited relationships of that features to other features in the claim. For example, using claim 21 as an example.
Examiner Response #1:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner analyzed each limitation of the claim under the subject matter eligibility analysis guidelines. The applicant makes a broad generalization without addressing how each limitation is not a mental process. Ex parte Desjardins et al. is directed to training an ML model on two ML tasks while the claimed invention is directed to ML classifier explainers which makes both inventions different from one other. Furthermore, the independent claim recites the limitations of producing prediction results (such as an operator, with the aid of the human mind or a pen and paper, predicting if an image of an animal is that of a cat or dog), applying prediction results (such as an operator, with the aid of the human mind or a pen and paper, applying the prediction of an image of an animal to each rule and giving each a score reflecting how accurate it is), and applying a confidence metric to select a rule (such as an operator, with the aid of the human mind or a pen and paper, selecting a rule if it has a higher confidence metric) which under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. Furthermore, the limitation of receiving, via a standardized application programming interface (API) of the explanation query handler, a request to generate an explainer for the machine learning model is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering. While the limitation of wherein application of the confidence metric improves accuracy of the explanation amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Applicant Argument #2:
In analyzing Applicant's claim, over pages 5-6 of the Office Action, the Office improperly stretches the mental process category to features that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. It is not possible for a human mind to I. generate the explainer, including a plurality of rules that explain at least some predictions produced by the machine learning model, using the explainer algorithm, the prediction results from training of the machine learning model, and at least the portion of the training data set used to train the machine learning model nor to II. execute the machine learning model, on an evaluation data set different from the at least the portion of the training data set used to generate the explainer to produce prediction results, and the Office has failed to show otherwise beyond merely conclusory statements.
Examiner Response #2:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations of generating the explainer, including a plurality of rules that explain at least some predictions produced by the machine learning model, using the explainer algorithm, the prediction results from training of the machine learning model, and at least the portion of the training data set used to train the machine learning model, executing the machine learning model on an evaluation data set different from the at least the portion of the training data set used to generate the explainer amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components and do not represent a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). While. The examiner does not consider this limitation to be a mental process.
Applicant Argument #3:
Additionally, Applicant's recites subject matter is patent-eligible at least because it describes an improvement to the technical field of explainers for machine learning classifiers (e.g., classification models), by providing a particular technique, whose implementation balances accuracy of predictions against easy-to-understand explanations for potentially complicated classification models.
Examiner Response #3:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the applicant argues that the claimed invention describes an improvement to the technical field of explainers for machine learning classifiers (e.g., classification models), by providing a particular technique, whose implementation balances accuracy of predictions against easy-to-understand explanations for potentially complicated classification models, and while the specifications recite that the claimed invention provides technical improvements to machine learning systems by:
Implementing a new architecture that separates the generation of
prediction results during model training from the generation of explanatory
rules. Detailed Description, paragraph [0015, 21, 29].
Using separate evaluation data sets to determine confidence metrics for
rules in an unbiased way. Detailed Description, paragraph [0019, 64].
Implementing an efficient selection mechanism that uses confidence
metrics to identify appropriate explanatory rules. Detailed Description,
paragraph [0030].
Improved accuracy and reliability by evaluating rules using a separate
evaluation dataset distinct from the training data. Detailed Description,
paragraphs [0015, 21].
Enhanced explanation quality through confidence metrics that measure
explanatory accuracy. Detailed Description, paragraphs [0051, 52].
More efficient explanation generation through use of rules derived from
model training results. Detailed Description, paragraph [0030].
Better scalability through a standardized API-based explanation query
handler. Detailed Description, paragraph [0015, 16, 36].
There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology. At best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea of producing prediction results, applying prediction results, or applying a confidence metric to select a rule rather than to an improvement on the functioning of a computer or to any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Thus, even when considering the elements in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Furthermore, example 39 is different from the claimed invention as it does not contain a mental process while the claimed invention does. Therefore, the analysis of example 39 does not apply to the claimed invention.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 21,
Step 1:
Claim 21 is directed to a computer-implemented method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 21 recites the following limitations:
produce prediction results These limitations require evaluating a machine learning model (corresponds to evaluation/judgment). This falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human with pencil and paper (such as an operator, with the aid of the human mind or a pen and paper, predicting if an image of an animal is that of a cat or dog).
applying the prediction results produced by the machine learning model for the evaluation data set to individual ones of the rules to determine a confidence metric indicative of an explanatory accuracy of individual ones of the rules These limitations require evaluating a machine learning model (corresponds to evaluation/judgment). This falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human with pencil and paper (such as an operator, with the aid of the human mind or a pen and paper, applying the prediction of an image of an animal to each rule and giving each a score reflecting how accurate it is). Furthermore, the recitation of “prediction results produced by the machine learning model for the evaluation data set” amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
applying, using the explainer, the confidence metric of a first rule to select the first rule from the plurality of rules that explains the first prediction These limitations require evaluating rules of an explainer (corresponds to evaluation/judgment). This falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human with pencil and paper (such as an operator, with the aid of the human mind or a pen and paper, selecting a rule if it has a higher confidence metric). Furthermore, the recitation of “using the explainer” amounts to mere instructions to implement the exception using a generic computer component and does not represent a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Thus, claim 21 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two:
The abstract idea of claim 21 is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited in claim 21 are:
computer-implemented which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components (computer-implemented) does not represent a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
performing, at a cloud based machine learning service. which amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (performing, at a cloud based machine learning service) and cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
allocating one or more virtualized compute resources to execute an explanation query handler for a machine learning model. which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components (allocating one or more virtualized compute resources to execute…) do not represent a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
receiving, via a standardized application programming interface (API) of the explanation query handler, a request to generate an explainer for the machine learning model, wherein the request specifies (a) an explainer algorithm selected from an explainer library and (b) an indication of at least a portion of a training data set of the machine learning model. which amounts to a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
obtaining prediction results from training of the machine learning model based on the training data set which amounts to a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
generating the explainer, including a plurality of rules that explain at least some predictions produced by the machine learning model, using the explainer algorithm, the prediction results from training of the machine learning model, and at least the portion of the training data set used to train the machine learning model which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components (generating the explainer…) does not represent a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
executing the machine learning model on an evaluation data set different from the at least the portion of the training data set used to generate the explainer which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components (executing the machine learning model …) does not represent a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving, at the explanation query handler, a first prediction produced by
the machine learning model with respect to a first input record which amounts to a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
wherein application of the confidence metric improves accuracy of the explanation which amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (application of the confidence metric improves accuracy) and cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
providing the explanation for the first prediction produced by the machine learning model with respect to at least the first input record, wherein the explanation identifies the first rule which amounts to extra-solution activity of data outputting. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Finally, the additional elements, taken alone or in combination, do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself:
computer-implemented. which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components (computer-implemented) does not represent a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
performing, at a cloud based machine learning service. which amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (performing, at a cloud based machine learning service) and cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
allocating one or more virtualized compute resources to execute an explanation query handler for a machine learning model. which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components (allocating one or more virtualized compute resources to execute…) does not represent a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
receiving, via a standardized application programming interface (API) of the explanation query handler, a request to generate an explainer for the machine learning model, wherein the request specifies (a) an explainer algorithm selected from an explainer library and (b) an indication of at least a portion of a training data set of the machine learning model. which amounts to a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
obtaining prediction results from training of the machine learning model based on the training data set which amounts to a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
generating the explainer, including a plurality of rules that explain at least some predictions produced by the machine learning model, using the explainer algorithm, the prediction results from training of the machine learning model, and at least the portion of the training data set used to train the machine learning model which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components (generating the explainer using the explainer algorithm …) does not represent a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
executing the machine learning model on an evaluation data set different from the at least the portion of the training data set used to generate the explainer which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components (executing the machine learning model …) does not represent a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving, at the explanation query handler, a first prediction produced by
the machine learning model with respect to a first input record which amounts to a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
wherein application of the confidence metric improves accuracy of the explanation which amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (application of the confidence metric improves accuracy) and cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
providing the explanation for the first prediction produced by the machine learning model with respect to at least the first input record, wherein the explanation identifies the first rule which amounts to extra-solution activity of data outputting. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, MPEP 2106(d)(II) notes the following, "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity...i. 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., 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);". Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the recitation of insignificant extra solution activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Claim 22,
Claim 22 is dependent on claim 21 and recites the additional elements of wherein generating the explainer comprises generating one or more decision trees which amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (generating the explainer comprises generating one or more decision trees) and cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claim does not recite any additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim thus remains subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 23,
Claim 23 is dependent on claim 22 and recites the additional elements of the first rule is selected based at least in part on a support metric indicative, with respect to the first rule, of a number of observation records whose attribute values match a predicate defined in the first rule which amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (the ranking is based at least in part on a support metric…) and cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claim does not recite any additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim thus remains subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 24,
Claim 24 is dependent on claim 21 and recites the additional elements of wherein the first rule is expressed in terms of a first transformation of a first attribute of input records of the machine learning model, the computer-implemented method further comprising performing, at the cloud-based machine learning service: applying a reverse transformation, with respect to the first transformation, on an internal representation of the first attribute of the first input record, wherein the explanation comprises a result of the reverse transformation. These limitations require applying a reverse transformation, with respect to the first transformation, on an internal representation of the first attribute of the first input record (corresponds to evaluation/judgment). This falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human with pencil and paper. Thus, claim 24 recites an abstract idea. Furthermore, the recitation of performing, at the cloud-based machine learning service amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components and does not represent a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 25,
Claim 25 is dependent on claim 21 and recites the additional elements of performing, at the cloud-based machine learning service: selecting, for the explanation, the first rule from the plurality of rules based at least in part on a number of predicates included in the first rule. These limitations require selecting, for the explanation (corresponds to evaluation/judgment). This falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human with pencil and paper. Thus, claim 25 recites an abstract idea. Furthermore, the recitation of performing, at the cloud-based machine learning service amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components and does not represent a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 26,
Claim 26 is dependent on claim 21 and includes additional limitations drawn to mental processes wherein the plurality of rules is identified utilizing the set of predictions. This claim recites an additional element receiving a set of predictions generated by the machine learning model for the portion of the training data set which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of data-gathering. MPEP 2106(d)(II) notes the following, "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity...i. 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., 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);". Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the recitation of insignificant extra solution activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Claim 27,
Claim 27 is dependent on claim 21 and only includes additional elements (wherein the machine learning model utilizes one or more of (a) a neural network algorithm, (b) a random forest algorithm, or (c) a boosted gradient tree algorithm) that amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field, which cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 28,
Claim 28 is directed to A system comprising one or more computing devices, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Claim 28 recites: “A system, comprising: one or more computing devices; wherein the one or more computing devices include instructions that upon execution on or across the one or more computing devices cause the one or more computing devices to:” which performs a process that has limitations similar to the limitations of claim 21. Thus claim 28 is rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 21. As performing an abstract idea on a generic computer component cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and cannot provide an inventive concept, claim 28 remains subject matter ineligible.
Claim 29,
Claim 29 is dependent on claim 28 and recites limitations that are similar to the limitations recited in claim 22, thus is rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 22. This claim does not recite any additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim thus remains subject matter ineligible.
Claim 30,
Claim 30 is dependent on claim 29 and recites limitations that are similar to the limitations recited in claim 23, thus is rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 23. This claim does not recite any additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim thus remains subject matter ineligible.
Claim 31,
Claim 31 is dependent on claim 28 and recites limitations that are similar to the limitations recited in claim 24, thus is rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 24. This claim does not recite any additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim thus remains subject matter ineligible.
Claim 32,
Claim 32 is dependent on claim 28 and recites limitations that are similar to the limitations recited in claim 25, thus is rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 25. This claim does not recite any additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim thus remains subject matter ineligible.
Claim 33,
Claim 33 is dependent on claim 28 and recites limitations that are similar to the limitations recited in claim 26, thus is rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 26. This claim does not recite any additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim thus remains subject matter ineligible.
Claim 34,
Claim 34 is dependent on claim 28 and only includes additional elements (wherein the machine learning model comprises a classification model) that amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field, which cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 35,
Claim 35 is directed to One or more non-transitory computer-accessible storage media, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Claim 35 recites: “One or more non-transitory computer-accessible storage media storing program instructions that when executed on or across one or more processors cause the one or more processors to:” which performs a process that has limitations similar to the limitations of claim 21. Thus claim 35 is rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 21. As performing an abstract idea on a generic computer component cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and cannot provide an inventive concept, claim 35 remains subject matter ineligible.
Claim 36,
Claim 36 is dependent on claim 35 and recites limitations that are similar to the limitations recited in claim 22, thus is rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 22. This claim does not recite any additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim thus remains subject matter ineligible.
Claim 37,
Claim 37 is dependent on claim 36 and recites limitations that are similar to the limitations recited in claim 23, thus is rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 23. This claim does not recite any additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim thus remains subject matter ineligible.
Claim 38,
Claim 38 is dependent on claim 35 and recites limitations that are similar to the limitations recited in claim 24, thus is rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 24. This claim does not recite any additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim thus remains subject matter ineligible.
Claim 39,
Claim 39 is dependent on claim 35 and recites limitations that are similar to the limitations recited in claim 25, thus is rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 25. This claim does not recite any additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim thus remains subject matter ineligible.
Claim 40,
Claim 40 is dependent on claim 35 and recites limitations that are similar to the limitations recited in claim 26, thus is rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 26. This claim does not recite any additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim thus remains subject matter ineligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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).
The following references have been determined to be related to the application, but were not applied in any specific rejection. They are nonetheless listed below for reference.
Bhattacharyya (US10546233)
“Bhattacharyya teaches a method for explaining how the human brain represents conceptual knowledge”
Sturlaugson (US20160358099A1)
“Sturlaugson teaches a method to compare candidate machine learning algorithms”
KOPP (US20160036844A1)
“KOPP teaches a method for identification of an anomaly associated with a false positive identification of a security threat by an intrusion detection system”
PALLATH (US20160078352A1)
“PALLATH teaches a method for determining insights on the dataset”
Stevens III (US 2012/0303570 Al)
“Stevens III teaches a method for parsing an electronic mail for scheduling a calendar appointment”
Vangala (US 2016/0321573 Al)
“Vangala teaches a more efficient user interface by providing suggestions that are tailored to a specific user's interests”
Burrell (How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms)
“Burrell teaches a method to distinguish between opacity as intentional corporate or state secrecy, as technical illiteracy, and as a characteristic of machine learning algorithms”
Strumbelj (Explaining prediction models and individual predictions with feature contributions)
“Strumbelj teaches a sensitivity analysis-based method for explaining prediction models that can be applied to any type of classification or regression model”
Olrog (US 2017 /0054592 Al)
“Olrog teaches a method for allocating cloud computing resources to processes, where at least some of the cloud computing resources have different limitations and conditions”
Tesauro (Online Resource Allocation Using Decompositional Reinforcement Learning)
“Tesauro teaches applying reinforcement learning to an online resource allocation task in a distributed multi-application computing environment with independent time-varying load in each application”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMCY ALGHAZZY whose telephone number is (571) 272-8824. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm 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, OMAR FERNANDEZ RIVAS can be reached on (571) 272-2589. 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.
/SHAMCY ALGHAZZY/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128