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 .
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 14592821, filed 10/29/2020, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s submission filed 06/08/2026 has been entered. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-17 remain pending in the application.
Claims 18-20 are canceled.
Claims 1, 6 and 11 are amended.
Response to Arguments
In reference to rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible because they do not merely recite a mental process, but instead recite a specific computer-implemented technique for generating predictive analytical models from large-scale historical student data using similarity-based segmentation, feature selection, clustering, and simultaneous model creation that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Applicant further contends that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing a specific technical solution to the problem of varying data availability in predictive modeling, improving the efficiency and accuracy of model generation. Finally, Applicant asserts that the claimed similarity-based clustering with a similarity threshold of less than 100% is a specific, unconventional algorithmic limitation that is neither well-understood, routine, nor conventional, and therefore the claims amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Although the claims now recite additional details, such as extracting features from historical data, segmenting students using similarity-based clustering with a similarity threshold less than 100%, selecting feature subsets based on model performance, and simultaneously creating analytical models using machine learning and propensity-score matching, these limitations merely further define the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, analyzing and processing information using mathematical concepts and mental processes. The amendments do not improve the functioning of a computer or another technology, nor do they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the additional limitations are directed to improving the quality of analytical results themselves and are used as tools to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, the amendments do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101.
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 1-17 are rejected under U.S.C 101 for containing an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is a process.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
segmenting the students into data-availability segments based on availability of the extracted features in the raw student data, wherein segmenting is based on similarity-based clustering of unique valid feature combinations, wherein the similarity-based clustering is set at a similarity threshold less than 100% - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
for each data-availability segment, determining a subset of features based on model performance - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
clustering the students within each data-availability segment into segment clusters using one or more features in the subset of features - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
for each segment cluster, determining another subset of features based on model performance - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
wherein the creating the analytical models includes combining predictive models with propensity-score matching, including identifying key success features from a predictive model building process, constructing propensity-score models using one or more of the key success features to enable matching in predictive propensity-score domain - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
performing statistical hypothesis testing to explain what interventions work for which segments of the students under what context. This limitation is directed to mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) l. C.)
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements:
extracting thousands of features from raw student data, multi-year historical student data; This limitation is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
simultaneously creating the analytical models for the segment clusters using a machine learning process, the analytical models providing at least actionable insights, - Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are:
extracting thousands of features from raw student data, multi-year historical student data; – This limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.).
simultaneously creating the analytical models for the segment clusters using a machine learning process, the analytical models providing at least actionable insights, - Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 2,
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which includes an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The additional limitations:
predicting initial course success for guidance using at least one of course/student similarity analyses, collaborative filtering, clustering of the students based on a predictive feature subset for course success and - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
identifying similar courses similar students have taken, and dynamic feature-based prediction. - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
Regarding claim 3,
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which includes an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The additional limitations:
estimating inherent course difficulties adjusted for student skills to identify gatekeeper courses, and toxic or synergistic course combinations using representations of concurrent-course combinations and their grades along with key student attributes for success. - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
Regarding claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which includes an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The additional limitations:
producing a heat map of a particular student that includes faculty-student interactions, student-student interactions, student performance and predicted scores to provide an understanding of how these variables interact with one another. - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
Regarding claim 5,
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which includes an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The additional limitations:
producing a table of effective faculty-student and faculty features as a function of student segments/clusters using student success measures and changes in student behavior post faculty engagement. - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
Regarding claim 6:
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is a process.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
segmenting the students into data-availability segments based on availability of the extracted features in the raw student data, wherein segmenting is based on similarity-based clustering of unique valid feature combinations wherein the similarity-based clustering is set at a similarity threshold less than 100%; - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
for each data-availability segment, determining a subset of features based on model performance - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
clustering the students within each data-availability segment into segment clusters using one or more features in the subset of features - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
for each segment cluster, determining another subset of features based on model performance - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
wherein the creating the analytical models includes combining predictive models with propensity-score matching, including identifying key success features from a predictive model building process, constructing propensity-score models using one or more of the key success features to enable matching in predictive propensity-score domain - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
performing statistical hypothesis testing with Bonferroni correction as a function of time and various segments to explain what interventions work for which segments of the students under what context. This limitation is directed to mathematical calculation as it is performing testing using Bonferroni correction as a function of time (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) l. C.)
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing program instructions for a method for building analytical models for an education application, wherein execution of the program instructions by one or more processors of a computer system causes the one or more processors to perform steps comprising – This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)).
extracting thousands of features from raw student data, multi-year historical student data; This limitation is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
creating the analytical models for the segment clusters using a machine learning process, the analytical models providing at least actionable insights, - Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing program instructions for a method for building analytical models for an education application, wherein execution of the program instructions by one or more processors of a computer system causes the one or more processors to perform steps comprising – This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)).
extracting thousands of features from raw student data, multi-year historical student data; – This limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.).
creating the analytical models for the segment clusters using a machine learning process, the analytical models providing at least actionable insights, - Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 7,
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 6 which includes an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 6). The additional limitations:
predicting initial course success for guidance using at least one of course/student similarity analyses, collaborative filtering, clustering of the students based on a predictive feature subset for course success and identifying similar courses similar students have taken, and dynamic feature-based prediction. This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
Regarding claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 6 which includes an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 6). The additional limitations:
estimating inherent course difficulties adjusted for student skills to identify gatekeeper courses, and toxic or synergistic course combinations using representations of concurrent-course combinations and their grades along with key student attributes for success. This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
Regarding claim 9,
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 6 which includes an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 6). The additional limitations:
producing a heat map of a particular student that includes faculty-student interactions, student-student interactions, student performance and predicted scores to provide an understanding of how these variables interact with one another. This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
Regarding claim 10,
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 6 which includes an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 6). The additional limitations:
producing a table of effective faculty-student and faculty features as a function of student segments/clusters using student success measures and changes in student behavior post faculty engagement. This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
Regarding claim 11:
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is a process.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
segmenting the students into data-availability segments based on availability of the extracted features in the raw student data, wherein segmenting is based on similarity-based clustering of unique valid feature combinations, wherein the similarity-based clustering is set at a similarity threshold less than 100%; - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
for each data-availability segment, determining a subset of features based on model performance - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
clustering the students within each data-availability segment into segment clusters using one or more features in the subset of features - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
for each segment cluster, determining another subset of features based on model performance - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
wherein the creating the analytical models includes combining predictive models with propensity-score matching, including identifying key success features from a predictive model building process, constructing propensity-score models using one or more of the key success features to enable matching in predictive propensity-score domain - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
performing statistical hypothesis testing with Bonferroni correction as a function of time and various segments to explain what interventions work for which segments of the students under what context. This limitation is directed to mathematical calculation as it is performing testing using Bonferroni correction as a function of time (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) l. C.)
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements:
memory; and at least one processor configured to: – This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)).
extract[[ing]] thousands of features from raw student data, multi-year historical student data; This limitation is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
simultaneously creating a plurality of analytical models for the segment clusters using a machine learning process, the analytical models providing at least actionable insights, - Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are:
memory; and at least one processor configured to: – This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)).
extract[[ing]] thousands of features from raw student data, multi-year historical student data; – This limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.).
simultaneously creating a plurality of analytical models for the segment clusters using a machine learning process, the analytical models providing at least actionable insights, - Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 12,
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 11 which includes an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 11). The additional limitations:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to – This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)).
predict initial course success for guidance using at least one of course/student similarity analyses, collaborative filtering, clustering of the students based on a predictive feature subset for course success and identifying similar courses similar students have taken, and dynamic feature-based prediction. - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
Regarding claim 13,
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 11 which includes an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 11). The additional limitations:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to – This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)).
estimate inherent course difficulties adjusted for student skills to identify gatekeeper courses, and toxic or synergistic course combinations using representations of concurrent-course combinations and their grades along with key student attributes for success. - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
Regarding claim 14,
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 11 which includes an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 11). The additional limitations:
wherein extracting features from raw student data comprises transforming raw student data into usable data and Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the exception into a practical application.
extracting features from the usable data. Under Step 2A-Prong Two, this limitation is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Under Step 2B, this limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.).
Regarding claim 15,
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 14 which includes an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 14). The additional limitations:
wherein transforming comprises transforming the raw student data into enrollment, session, and or term levels. - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
Regarding claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which includes an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The additional limitations:
wherein extracting features from raw student data comprises transforming raw student data into usable data and Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the exception into a practical application.
extracting features from the usable data. Under Step 2A-Prong Two, this limitation is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Under Step 2B, this limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.).
Regarding claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 16 which includes an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 16). The additional limitations:
wherein transforming comprises transforming the raw student data into enrollment, session, and or term levels. - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are allowed over prior art. None of the prior art, either alone on in combination, fairly discloses or suggests the limitation of claims 1, 6 and 11 in particular: “wherein the similarity-based clustering is set at a similarity threshold less than 100%”
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).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 AMY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Yi can be reached at (571) 270-7519. 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.
/AMY TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2126
/DAVID YI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights