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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 5-8, and 12-14, as amended on March 30, 2026, are presented for examination in this application (17528535) filed on November 17, 2021. Priority is acknowledged to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2020-0156922, filed November 20, 2020 in the Korean Intellectual Property Office.
The Examiner cites particular sections in the references as applied to the claims
below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are
representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within
the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully
requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in
their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the
context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed 2025-09-16 have been fully considered. The arguments and remarks regarding the 35 U.S.C 101 rejections were not found to be persuasive. The arguments and remarks regarding the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections were found to persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 103 rejections have been withdrawn and 35 U.S.C 101 rejections has been maintained.
35 U.S.C 101
Applicant asserts:
Applicant asserts “The "convolution tensor" of a CNN may include millions of parameters and high- dimensional data structures. The human mind is not equipped to identify such large-scale tensors, divide them into sub-matrices, determine tiling directions based on a result of comparing a greater value between the number of columns of the convolution kernel and the number of rows of the convolution kernel with a ratio of the size of the output channel to the size of the input channel, and perform Low Rank Approximation (LRA). It is practically impossible for a human to perform these specific operations on millions of parameters using only pen and paper. Claim 1 is directed to a concrete pipeline that transforms a convolution tensor into a tile matrix and subsequently generates a compressed CNN structure to perform inference. Accordingly, this series of processes for handling large-scale data constitutes a specific, computer-implemented technique that cannot practically be performed by a human.”
…
Applicant further asserts “Specifically, claim 1 is amended to recite a feature of generating a U/V convolution tensor by recombining matrices ‘in an order reverse to the dividing . ..while maintaining a convolution operation structure consistent with the convolution tensor’. Also, claim 1 is amended to recite, ‘obtaining a compressed convolution structure’ and ‘performing inference using the compressed CNN comprising the compressed convolution structure’. The above elements of claim 1 are not mere recitations of a mathematical formula on a general-purpose computer. Rather, those elements of claim 1 constitutes a technical solution to the problem of ‘acceleration performance degradation’ often encountered during neural network compression. As supported by the Specification ( [0144]), by preserving the original convolution architecture, the claimed invention allows for the immediate use of hardware and “software designed and established to perform the convolution operation (e.g., GPU/NPU hardware accelerators and software), thereby significantly accelerating computation speed. Furthermore, by merging the features of claim 4, the claim now requires a specific tiling logic that configures the tile matrix into a square-like shape. As supported by the Specification ( [0065]), the convolution tensor may be compressed at a high compression rate when low rank approximation (LRA) is performed with the same rank, or may be compressed with high rank when LRA is performed at the same compression rate. These elements of the present disclosure, which are reflected in claim 1, improve the functioning of the computer itself.”
..
Applicant further asserts “Specifically, claim 1 incorporates an inventive concept through the specific tiling direction determination logic (formerly claim 4), which requires: ‘ . . .determining to tile the plurality of two-dimensional sub-matrices vertically based on a greater value between a number of columns ... and a number of rows ... being less than a ratio of the size of the output channel to the size of the input channel.’ The Office has already indicated in the Office Action that these features of claim 4 are allowable (i.e., novel and non-obvious) if rewritten in independent form. Under the guidance of MPEP § 2106.05(d), an additional limitation that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the relevant field constitutes ‘significantly more.’ Since the Examiner has acknowledged that the prior art fails to disclose or suggest this specific hardware-aware tiling logic, this feature cannot be considered conventional. Furthermore, as indicated in the table 2 of the specification, in a case where a
convolution layer is not compressed, compared to a case where a 3D convolution tensor is divided for vertical tiling, the kernel size and the convolution operation amount may be 4.8 times greater, respectively. In addition, in a case of conventional LRA, compared to a case where a 3D convolution tensor is divided for vertical tiling, the kernel size and the convolution operation amount may be 2.7 times greater, respectively. Accordingly, because claim 1 recites an inventive concept that is neither conventional nor routine, the claim amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.”.
Examiner asserts:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In regard to the applicant’s arguments of step 2A prong 1, the examiner finds that all of the current limitations in at least independent claim 1, other than the limitations “a method of compressing a convolutional neural network including at least one convolution layer, performed by an electronic device”, “using the compressed CNN”, and “using the compressed CNN comprising the compressed convolution structure” are deemed abstract ideas. Identifying a convolution tensor, determining a tiling direction, generating matrices and generating tensors are considered to be abstract ideas, specifically mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). A human, using their mind, can do matrix operations and convolutions with a pen and paper and thus are considered mental processes and abstract ideas. The assertion, made by the Applicant’s representative, that convolution tensor may contain millions of parameters and therefore it is practically impossible to make observations or evaluations with the human mind or use of pen and paper is not applicable to the claim. The claim itself is not limiting, nor is the specification, that the convolution tensor necessarily has to include millions of parameters. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, the Examiner has found that the bare minimum to constitute a convolution tensor would allow for a human mind to process observations and evaluations without the aid of a computer. The limitation of performing convolutional operations amounts to mathematical calculations and not a limitation that necessarily needs a computer or other device to compute (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C.). Even though claims are examined in light of the specification the current claim does not recite any additional elements that make the claims eligible. “If applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded) or is a 'particular machine' (as in Bilski), the examiner should look at whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”. MPEP 2106.05(b).“It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine”. MPEP 2016.05(b)(I). A person having ordinary skill in the art would find compressing convolutional neural networks to be considered a conventional computer function within the field of machine learning and artificial intelligence. The claim as a whole is still directed to abstract idea mental processes.
In regard to the arguments made that the claims are integrated into a practical application, the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts that the additional elements that add to the practical application cannot come directly from abstract ideas. Creating a specific tiling logic, as currently claimed, is an abstract idea and cannot be viewed as an additional element that adds to the practical application.
In regard to the arguments made that the claims include significantly more than the abstract idea, the Examiner noted in the Office Action dated 01/30/2026, that claims 4-7 and 11-14 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims provided the 101 rejections are overcome. Specifically, claim 4 itself contained abstract ideas as noted in the section Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101 under claim 4’s rejection. Adding claim 4 to independent claim 1 would not deem claim 1 allowable. Furthermore, the amended claim has now added the use of a convolutional neural network without sufficient details that would deem them to be significantly more. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the claims as a whole are still directed to abstract ideas, namely mental processes and mathematical calculations.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 7 and 14 have a grammatical error. They recite “identify a sharing matrix from the two-dimensional tile matrix along at least one of tiling directions for the plurality of two-dimensional sub-matrices”. There is a missing article that should come before “tiling directions” such as “the”. If the Applicant would not like to correct it in this manner, the Applicant can also change the sentence to recite “…at least one tiling direction…” Appropriate corrections should be made.
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, 5-8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG).
Regarding claim 1 (currently amended):
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or
natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites abstract ideas:
performing inference — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
identifying a convolution tensor of the at least one convolution layer — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
dividing the convolution tensor into a plurality of two-dimensional sub-matrices comprising a row of a size corresponding to a size of an input channel and a column of a size corresponding to a size of an output channel — this limitation is directed to mathematical calculations 2106.04(a)(2) I. C.
determining a tiling direction for the convolution tensor based on a shape of the convolution tensor — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
generating a two-dimensional tile matrix by tiling the plurality of two-dimensional sub-matrices along the tiling direction — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
generating a U matrix and a V matrix by performing low rank approximation (LRA) on the two-dimensional tile matrix — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
generating a U convolution tensor by recombining the U matrix and generating a V convolution tensor by recombining the V matrix, in an order reverse to the dividing of the convolution tensor, while maintaining a convolution operation structure consistent with the convolution tensor, to obtain a compressed convolution structure comprising the U convolution tensor and the V convolution tensor — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
performing the inference by generating output data for the at least one convolution layer by sequentially performing convolution operation to input data using the V convolution tensor and the U convolution tensor — this limitation is directed to mathematical calculations 2106.04(a)(2) I. C.
wherein the determining the tiling direction for the convolution tensor comprises determining to tile the plurality of two-dimensional sub-matrices vertically based on a greater value between a number of columns of a convolution kernel formed by the convolution tensor and a number of rows of the convolution kernel being less than a ratio of the size of the output channel to the size of the input channel — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application:
a method of compressing a convolutional neural network (CNN) including at least one convolutional layer, performed by an electronic device — amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
using the compressed CNN — amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
using the compressed CNN comprising the compressed convolution structure — amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount
significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended):
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or
natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1, which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
determining to tile the plurality of two-dimensional sub-matrices horizontally based on a reciprocal of the greater value between the number of columns of the convolution kernel and the number of rows of the convolution kernel being greater than the ratio of the size of the output channel to the size of the input channel — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount
significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended):
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or
natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1, which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
determining to tile the plurality of two-dimensional sub-matrices horizontally as many as the number of columns of the convolution kernel and determining to tile the plurality of two-dimensional sub-matrices vertically as many as the number of rows of the convolution kernel, based on a result of the greater value between the number of columns of the convolution kernel and the number of rows of the convolution kernel being greater than the ratio of the size of the output channel to the size of the input channel a reciprocal of the greater value between the number of columns of the convolution kernel and the number of rows of the convolution kernel being less than the ratio of the size of the output channel to the size of the input channel, respectively — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount
significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended):
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or
natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1, which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
identifying a sharing matrix from the two-dimensional tile matrix along at least one of tiling directions for the plurality of two-dimensional sub-matrices — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
generating the U matrix and the V matrix by performing the LRA based on the identified sharing matrix — this limitation is directed to mathematical calculations 2106.04(a)(2) I. C.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount
significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8 (currently amended):
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a machine.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or
natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites abstract ideas:
performing inference — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
identify a convolution tensor of the at least one convolution layer — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
dividing the convolution tensor into a plurality of two-dimensional sub-matrices comprising a row of a size corresponding to a size of an input channel and a column of a size corresponding to a size of an output channel — this limitation is directed to mathematical calculations 2106.04(a)(2) I. C.
determine a tiling direction for the convolution tensor based on a shape of the convolution tensor — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
generate a two-dimensional tile matrix by tiling the plurality of two-dimensional sub-matrices along the tiling direction — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
generate a U matrix and a V matrix by performing low rank approximation (LRA) on the two-dimensional tile matrix — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
generating a U convolution tensor by recombining the U matrix and generating a V convolution tensor by recombining the V matrix, in an order reverse to the dividing of the convolution tensor, while maintaining a convolution operation structure consistent with the convolution tensor, to obtain a compressed convolution structure comprising the U convolution tensor and the V convolution tensor — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
generate output data for the at least one convolution layer by sequentially performing convolution operation to input data using the V convolution tensor and the U convolution tensor — this limitation is directed to mathematical calculations 2106.04(a)(2) I. C.
wherein the determining the tiling direction for the convolution tensor comprises determining to tile the plurality of two-dimensional sub-matrices vertically based on a greater value between a number of columns of a convolution kernel formed by the convolution tensor and a number of rows of the convolution kernel being less than a ratio of the size of the output channel to the size of the input channel — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application:
an electronic device for compressing a convolutional neural network (CNN) including at least one convolution layer — amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
using the compressed CNN — amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
using the compressed CNN comprising the compressed convolution structure — amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount
significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception.
Regarding claim 12 (currently amended):
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or
natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 8, which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
determine to tile the plurality of two-dimensional sub-matrices horizontally based on a reciprocal of the greater value between the number of columns of the convolution kernel and the number of rows of the convolution kernel being greater than the ratio of the size of the output channel to the size of the input channel — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount
significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception.
Regarding claim 13 (currently amended):
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or
natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 8, which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
determine to tile the plurality of two-dimensional sub-matrices horizontally as many as the number of columns of the convolution kernel and determining to tile the plurality of two-dimensional sub-matrices vertically as many as the number of rows of the convolution kernel, based on a result of the greater value between the number of columns of the convolution kernel and the number of rows of the convolution kernel being greater than the ratio of the size of the output channel to the size of the input channel a reciprocal of the greater value between the number of columns of the convolution kernel and the number of rows of the convolution kernel being less than the ratio of the size of the output channel to the size of the input channel, respectively — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount
significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception.
Regarding claim 14 (currently amended):
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or
natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 8, which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
identify a sharing matrix from the two-dimensional tile matrix along at least one of tiling directions for the plurality of two-dimensional sub-matrices — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
generate the U matrix and the V matrix by performing the LRA based on the identified sharing matrix — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount
significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew A Bracero whose telephone number is (571)270-0592. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. ET.
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 Monday – Friday 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. E.T 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.
/ANDREW BRACERO/Examiner, Art Unit 2126
/DAVID YI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights