DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Communication received on 08/28/2025 for application number 17/561,292.
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 12, 13, and 14 are independent claims.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/28/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1,3, 5, 7, and 12-14 have been amended. Claims 6 and 8 are canceled. Claim 15 is new. Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-15 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the following: "the screen is configured to display a prediction result of an operation state of a prediction target device based on an extracted second history of an operation state of one or more target device, the extracted second history satisfying an attribute information filter condition in which at least one attribute information included in attribute information of the prediction target device is specified, and an operation state filter condition in which at least one operation state included in a first history of the operation state of the prediction target device, the first history being received from the prediction target device via a predetermined network”; “the prediction result is a future operation state output from a learning model that is generated using the third history of the operation state as learning data and that receives the first history of the operation state of the prediction target device”. These limitations are indefinite because it’s unclear whether the phrase "and an operation state filter condition in which at least one operation state included in a first history of the operation state of the prediction target device" is referring to ‘a prediction result of an operation state of a prediction target device’ OR ‘the extracted second history satisfying’; it’s unclear whether the phrase " that receives the first history of the operation state of the prediction target device" is referring to ‘the prediction result’ OR ‘a learning model’. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation "the screen is configured to display a prediction result of an operation state of a prediction target device based on an extracted second history of an operation state of one or more target device, the extracted second history satisfying an attribute information filter condition in which at least one attribute information included in attribute information of the prediction target device is specified, and an operation state filter condition in which at least one operation state included in a first history of the operation state of the prediction target device, the first history being received from the prediction target device via a predetermined network” as: "the screen is configured to display a prediction result of an operation state of a prediction target device based on an extracted second history of an operation state of one or more target device and an operation state filter condition, the extracted second history satisfying an attribute information filter condition in which at least one attribute information included in attribute information of the prediction target device is specified, the operation state filter condition in which at least one operation state included in a first history of the operation state of the prediction target device is specified, the first history being received from the prediction target device via a predetermined network” and will interpret the limitation “the prediction result is a future operation state output from a learning model that is generated using the third history of the operation state as learning data and that receives the first history of the operation state of the prediction target device” as: “the prediction result is a future operation state output from a learning model that is generated using the third history of the operation state as learning data, wherein the learning model receives the first history of the operation state of the prediction target device”.
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, 7, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, and 15 are directed to a system, claim 12 is directed to a device, claim 13 is directed to a method, and claim 14 is directed to a medium. Thus, the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (machine, process, articles of manufacture) and are eligible under Step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent Claims
Claims 1, 13, and 14 recite:
extract a second history of an operation state of one or more target devices satisfying the attribute information filter condition of the plurality of target devices, with reference to the memory; extract a third history of an operation state of the one of more target devices from the second history of the operation state, the third history of the operation state satisfying the operation state filter condition, when a duration time of the operation state specified as the operation state filter condition is equal to or longer than a predetermined threshold and the duration time being calculated as a total time of the second history of each operation state when the operation state specified as the operation state filter condition is intermittent in the second history of the operation state - these limitations encompass a user to perform these steps mentally or by using pen and paper, such as a user determining to select a subset of operation data from a past operation data (first history) based on certain conditions, the conditions including an attribute condition and an operation state condition; the conditions specify to select operation data that satisfy the attribute condition (second history) and to select data from the second history that satisfy the operation condition (third history) when the total duration of an operation state is greater than or equal to a threshold, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
generate a leaning model using the third history of the operation state as leaning data, and input the first history of operation state of the prediction target device into the learning model, and output a future operation state of the prediction target device - these limitations encompass a user to perform these steps mentally or by using pen and paper, such as a user drawing a model based the selected subset of past operation data and calculating/ determining an output for an input, using the model to predict the state of a device, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
Claim 12 recites:
a prediction result of an operation state of a prediction target device based on an extracted second history of an operation state of one or more target device, the extracted second history satisfying an attribute information filter condition in which at least one attribute information included in attribute information of the prediction target device is specified, and an operation state filter condition in which at least one operation state included in a first history of the operation state of the prediction target device; a third history of an operation state of the one or more target devices is extracted from the second history of the operation state, the third history of the operation state satisfying the operation state filter condition is extracted, when a duration time of the operation state specified as the operation state filter condition is equal to or longer than a predetermined threshold, and the duration time being calculated as a total time of the second history of each operation state when the operation state specified as the operation state filter condition is intermittent in the second history of the operation state, and the prediction result is a future operation state output from a learning model that is generated using the third history of the operation state as learning data and that receives the first history of the operation state of the prediction target device - these limitations encompass a user to perform these steps mentally or by using pen and paper, such as a user determining to select a subset of operation data from a past operation data (first history) based on certain conditions, the conditions including an attribute condition and an operation state condition; the conditions specify to select operation data that satisfy the attribute condition (second history) and to select data from the second history that satisfy the operation condition (third history) when the total duration of an operation state is greater than or equal to a threshold, drawing a model based the selected subset of past operation data and calculating/ determining an output for an input, using the model to predict the state of a device, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
Step 2A Prong 2
Independent Claims
Additional elements
Claims 1, 13, and 14 recite:
the memory stores a history of an operation state of each of a plurality of target devices, which is received from each of the plurality of target devices via a predetermined network, and attribute information indicating an attribute of each of the plurality of target devices - these limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of merely storing/ retrieving data and mere data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and using generic computer components as a tool (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
acquire an attribute information filter condition in which at least one attribute information included in attribute information of a prediction target device is specified; acquire an operation state filter condition in which at least one operation state included in a first history of an operation state of the prediction target device is specified - these limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 recites:
a prediction system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions thereon; the instructions when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform method - these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amount to no more than using generic computer components to apply the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 12 recites:
a display device for identifying an operation state of a target device, the display device comprising: a screen – this is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amount to no more than using generic computer components to apply the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This limitation can also be viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
the screen is configured to display a prediction result - this limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is merely using generic computer components as a tool (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
the first history being received from the prediction target device via a predetermined network - this limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 13 recites:
an information processing device including one or more processors and a memory that stores instructions - these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amount to no more than using generic computer components to apply the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 14 recites:
a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that causes an information processing device including a memory - these are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amount to no more than using generic computer components to apply the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Independent Claims
Additional elements
Claims 1, 13, and 14 recite:
the memory stores a history of an operation state of each of a plurality of target devices, which is received from each of the plurality of target devices via a predetermined network, and attribute information indicating an attribute of each of the plurality of target devices - these limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of merely storing/ retrieving data and mere data gathering, which are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), “storing/ retrieving information in memory”, “receiving/ transmitting data”) and using generic computer components as a tool (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
acquire an attribute information filter condition in which at least one attribute information included in attribute information of a prediction target device is specified; acquire an operation state filter condition in which at least one operation state included in a first history of an operation state of the prediction target device is specified - - these limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), “receiving/ transmitting data”).
Claim 1 recites:
a prediction system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions thereon; the instructions when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform method - these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amount to no more than using generic computer components to apply the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 12 recites:
a display device for identifying an operation state of a target device, the display device comprising: a screen – this is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amount to no more than using generic computer components to apply the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This limitation can also be viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
the screen is configured to display a prediction result - this limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), “receiving/ transmitting data”, “presenting offers”)and is merely using generic computer components as a tool (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
the first history being received from the prediction target device via a predetermined network - this limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), “receiving/ transmitting data”).
Claim 13 recites:
an information processing device including one or more processors and a memory that stores instructions - these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amount to no more than using generic computer components to apply the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 14 recites:
a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that causes an information processing device including a memory - these are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amount to no more than using generic computer components to apply the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claims are patent ineligible.
Step 2A Prong 1
Dependent Claims
Claim 5:
statistically analyzes the extracted third history of the operation state and calculates a probability of occurrence of the operation state - these limitations encompass a user to perform these steps mentally or by using pen and paper using mathematical concepts.
Claim 7:
using the extracted third history of the operation state as learning data to generate a learning model, and input the operation state of the prediction target device into the learning model to output a future operation state of the prediction target device - these limitations encompass a user to perform these steps mentally or by using pen and paper, such as a user drawing a model based the selected subset of past operation data and calculating/ determining an output for an input, using the model to predict the state of a device.
Claim 15:
statistically analyze the third history of the operation state to calculate a probability of occurrence of the operation state; and cause the probability of occurrence, the first history of the operation state of the prediction target device, and the output future operation state of the prediction target device on a same time axis in a superimposed manner - these limitations recite mental process and mathematical concepts, such as a user analyzing data using mathematical relationships, calculate probability, and plotting values in a specific manner.
Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
Dependent Claims
Additional elements
Claim 2:
the instructions cause the one or more processors to acquire the attribute information filter condition by receiving an input of the attribute information filter condition - this limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is merely using generic computer components as a tool (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 3:
the instructions cause the one or more processors to receive a designation of the prediction target device and generates the operation state filter condition based on the first history of the operation state of the prediction target device stored in the memory - this limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is merely using generic computer components as a tool (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 4:
the instructions cause the one or more processors to acquire the attribute information filter condition by receiving an input of the operation state filter condition - this limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is merely using generic computer components as a tool (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5:
the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform method - these are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amount to no more than using generic computer components to apply the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Claim 7:
the instructions cause the one or more processors to execute machine learning to generate a learning model - this limitation is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to the field of machine learning and computers (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and merely using machine learning and computers as a tool, by using it in its ordinary capacity to perform predictions (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 9:
a plurality of operation states are specified in the operation state filter condition, and the operation state filter condition includes an order of occurrence of the plurality of operation states - this limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). This limitation can also be viewed as limiting the type of data being operated on by the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 10:
the target device is a plant - this limitation is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to the field of plants (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 11:
the target device is a boiler - this limitation is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to the field of boilers (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 15:
a display device, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform steps; the display device to display - these are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amount to no more than using generic computer components to apply the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Dependent Claims
Additional elements
Claim 2:
the instructions cause the one or more processors to acquire the attribute information filter condition by receiving an input of the attribute information filter condition - this limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), “receiving/ transmitting data”) and is merely using generic computer components as a tool (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 3:
the instructions cause the one or more processors to receive a designation of the prediction target device and generates the operation state filter condition based on the first history of the operation state of the prediction target device stored in the memory - this limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), “receiving/ transmitting data”) and is merely using generic computer components as a tool (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 4:
the instructions cause the one or more processors to acquire the attribute information filter condition by receiving an input of the operation state filter condition - this limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), “receiving/ transmitting data”) and is merely using generic computer components as a tool (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5:
the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform method - these are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amount to no more than using generic computer components to apply the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Claim 7:
the instructions cause the one or more processors to execute machine learning to generate a learning model - this limitation is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to the field of machine learning and computers (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and merely using machine learning and computers as a tool, by using it in its ordinary capacity to perform predictions (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 9:
a plurality of operation states are specified in the operation state filter condition, and the operation state filter condition includes an order of occurrence of the plurality of operation states - this limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), “receiving/ transmitting data”). This limitation can also be viewed as limiting the type of data being operated on by the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 10:
the target device is a plant - this limitation is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to the field of plants (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 11:
the target device is a boiler - this limitation is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to the field of boilers (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 15:
a display device, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform steps; the display device to display - these are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amount to no more than using generic computer components to apply the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, these claims are patent ineligible.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. §112(b): Applicant’s amendments to claim 12 has not fully overcome the 112(b) rejection previously set forth.
35 U.S.C. §101: In the remarks, Applicant argues that: claim 1 specifies a process of generating a learning model using a highly specific dataset (the "third history") and inputting the prediction target's actual history (the "first history") into this model to predict a future state, which represent a specific technological improvement to the functioning of the prediction system itself. This process of creating a refined dataset removes noise and irrelevant data, which is a specific technical improvement to the system that leads to reduced data volume and increased prediction accuracy.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Amended independent claim 1 recites limitations “extract a second history of an operation state of one or more target devices satisfying the attribute information filter condition of the plurality of target devices, with reference to the memory; extract a third history of an operation state of the one of more target devices from the second history of the operation state, the third history of the operation state satisfying the operation state filter condition, when a duration time of the operation state specified as the operation state filter condition is equal to or longer than a predetermined threshold and the duration time being calculated as a total time of the second history of each operation state when the operation state specified as the operation state filter condition is intermittent in the second history of the operation state” which encompass steps such as a user determining to select a subset of operation data from a past operation data based on certain conditions, the conditions including an attribute condition and an operation state condition; the conditions specify to select operation data that satisfy the attribute condition (second history) and to select data from the second history that satisfy the operation condition when the total duration of an operation state is greater than or equal to a threshold, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper; limitations “generate a leaning model using the third history of the operation state as leaning data, and input the first history of operation state of the prediction target device into the learning model, and output a future operation state of the prediction target device” which encompass steps such as a user drawing a model based the selected subset of past operation data and calculating/ determining an output for an input, using the model to predict the state of a device, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus, the steps of extracting/ selecting a subset of operation data based on certain conditions/ filters, creating a model based on the selected subset of operation data, and using the model to determine output are mental processes that are practically capable of being performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Any purported improvement is based on the above notes steps, which are abstract ideas (mental process). Examiner notes that “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement” (see MPEP § 2106.05 (a)). Further, the recited claim merely involves, at most, an improvement to the abstract idea itself with the aid of a generic computer components. Examiner notes that “It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology” (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Thus, the claim recites abstract idea and the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim does not provide an inventive concept and is patent ineligible. See the detailed analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections above.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments concerning the §101 rejections are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. §103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 CFR § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Kaplan et al. (US 2016/0077871 A1) teaches: The total duration of the active state is the time that elapses between entering the active state and transitioning to the idle state or other performance state. The updated value of the duration is used to update an active state duration history that includes a predetermined number of durations of previous active states. The total duration of the active state is the time that elapses between entering the active state and transitioning to the idle state or other performance state. The updated value of the duration is used to update an active state duration history that includes a predetermined number of durations of previous active states. The active state duration history, Y(t), may include information indicating the durations of the last N active states so that the training length of the linear predictor is N. A value of “1” may be used to indicate an active state that has a duration that is longer than a threshold and a value of “0” may be used to indicate an active state that has a duration that is shorter than the threshold. The threshold may be set based on one or more performance policies. The global predictor 300 receives information indicating the duration of active states and uses this information to construct a pattern history 305 for long or short duration events associated with the process thread. The active state duration predictor 210 may filter an active state duration history, Y(t), to remove outlier idle events such as events that are significantly longer or significantly shorter than the mean value of the active state durations in the history of the process thread (see [0033]-[0038]).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REJI KARTHOLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3432. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 3:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Welch, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-7212. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/REJI KARTHOLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2143