DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-18 are pending in the application and have been examined.
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 response filed on 03/02/2026 has been correspondingly accepted and considered in this Office Action. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-18 have been examined.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 7 and 13 overcome the claim objections set forth in the Office Action mailed August 28, 2025.
Applicant’s response, page 7, regarding clarification regarding the support of “content data structure” in the specifications overcomes the rejections to the claim 1, 7 and 13 and the dependent claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph set forth in the Office Action mailed August 28, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, 7 and 13 state that
“Claims 1, 7 and 13, and therefore claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 which depend therefrom are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more…. Applicant respectfully disagrees. …..Applicant has amended the relevant aspects of the claims to specify the machine translation features. For example, the feature of: "pre-processing, by the computer, the reference document and the reference translation by building an electronic content data structure of the reference document and the reference translation, wherein building the electronic content data structure comprises building, by the computer, a translation glossary through statistical analysis and comparison with existing databases"…Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed features include patent eligible subject matter and that the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be withdrawn.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees, amendments to the claims 1, 7 and 13 represent using a computer or a general processor to process the steps of translation of source document. The limitations of “pre-processing, by the computer, the reference document and the reference translation by building an electronic content data structure of the reference document and the reference translation, wherein building the electronic content data structure comprises building, by the computer, a translation glossary through statistical analysis and comparison with existing databases;” are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05. Further, limitations receiving, identifying and translating are recited as being performed by a computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality. In limitation (a), the computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations (b) and (c), the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The rejections of claims 1, 7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are sustained and updated accordingly. It is the Examiners recommendation to give details on the parts of the data structure and how it is used with the appropriate support in the Specifications to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, 7 and 13 state that
“Applicant respectfully submits that the combined references of Mathur, Ukrainets, and Gusakov could not render the amended independent claims obvious… Again, Mathur's teaching is contrary to the aspects of the invention, especially relating to the features as disclosed in paragraphs [0004], [0006], [0017], [0020], [0034], [0041] and [0045], where the reference document may not be available for storage in advance. As a result, as described in paragraphs [0037] and [0052], the reference document is provided on an ad hoc basis for the translation.. Further, Ukrainets could not have cured the deficiencies of Mathur and further fails to teach or suggest the "building" element of amended claim 1. The Office cites paragraphs [0022], [0023], [0025], and [0032] of Ukrainets but these references fail to disclose or suggest the claimed elements ."
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 7 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to the art rejection(s) of the remainder of dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103, in case said claims are correspondingly discussed and/or argued for at least the same rationale presented in Remarks filed 03/02/2026, Examiner respectfully notes as follows. For completeness, should the mentioned claims be likewise traversed for similar reasons to independent claims 1, 7 and 13 correspondingly, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant to the same previous supra reasons provided in the response directed towards claims 1, 7 and 13 correspondingly discussed above. For at least the same supra provided reasons, Examiner likewise respectfully disagrees, and Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities : refers to building a translation glossary which has been claimed in the independent claim 13. Appropriate update to the claim is requested. Corresponding claims 5 and 11 were canceled in prior claim amendments.
Claims 6, 12 and 18 refer to Currently Amended while there are no amendments to claims in current submissions. Appropriate corrections is requested.
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, 7 and 13, and the claims 2-4, 6, 8-10,12 and 14-18 which depend therefrom are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
According to USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, method of manufacture, or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception (e.g. an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, calculations
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
Mental processes- concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinions)
STEP 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative than an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Using the two-step inquiry, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea as show below:
STEP 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
YES. Claim 1 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 an abstract idea:
The limitation pre-processing, by the computer, the reference document and the reference translation by building an electronic content data structure of the reference document and the reference translation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed by a human but for the recitation of generic computer components.
The limitation of identifying, by the computer, at least one translation entity in the source document as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed by a human.
The limitation of translating, by the computer, the at least one translation entity as a function of the electronic content data structure model of the reference document and reference translation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed by a human but for the recitation of generic computer components.
The limitation of pre-processing, by the computer, the reference document and the reference translation by building an electronic content data structure of the reference document and the reference translation, wherein building the electronic content data structure comprises building, by the computer, a translation glossary through statistical analysis and comparison with existing databases, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed by a human using a computer.
STEP 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of processing through a “computer” and building “data structure” which are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the insignificant extra-solution activities abstract idea but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 1 also recites receiving, by a computer, the source document in a digital format having a human readable content for content machine translation; triggered by the receiving of the source document, prompting to dynamically obtain a reference document in the digital format and a reference translation in the digital format, wherein the reference translation comprises a translation of the reference document, wherein the reference document is obtained without a pre-fetching action by a computer program; which are data-gathering steps that adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
NO.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer and data structure amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 further specifies providing the format of an input to a computer and is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a data gathering process (insignificant extra-solution activity) and does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a technology or computer . The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 further recites format of the reference translation. This limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a data gathering process (insignificant extra-solution activity), using well-understood, routine, and conventional components recited at a high level of generality and does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a technology or computer. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 further describes the format of translation entity and is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is insignificant extra-solution activity and does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a technology or computer. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 further describes the building of a translation glossary and is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a mathematical computation process that can be performed by a human using mathematical computational tools to create a glossary of technical/special terms and does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a technology or computer. The computer and data structure is recited at a high level of generality and merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 7-10, 12 are analogous to claims 1-4, 6 respectively, as directed to a tangible and non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing executable instructions, which when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform the operations set forth in claims 1-4, 6, and are subjected to the same rejections as claims 1-4, 6 respectively.
Claims 13-16, 18 are analogous to claims 1-4, 6 respectively, as directed to a computer-programmed system comprising a memory component and a processing device coupled to the memory component, the processing device to perform the operations set forth in claims 11-4, 6 and are subjected to the same rejections as claims 1-4, 6 respectively. Claim 17 merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinkham et. al. US Patent 7,356,457 in view of Mathur et. al. US Patent 11,769,019.
Regarding claim 1, Pinkham teaches a computer-implemented method for a machine translation of a source document in a source language to a target document in a target language (see Pinkham, Fig. 3), comprising: receiving, by a computer, the source document in a digital format having a human readable content for content machine translation (see
PNG
media_image1.png
438
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pinkham, Fig 3. 350, col 7 lines 48-49); triggered by the receiving of the source document, prompting to dynamically obtain a reference document in a digital format and a reference translation in a digital format, wherein the reference translation comprises a translation of the reference document, wherein the reference document is obtained without pre-fetching action by a computer program (see Pinkham, col 5, line 66- col 6 line 6, 330 and 332 are fed to the system, the reference documents and translation, without pre-fetching ; the training processes can be processed with the development of computer technology by a person skilled in the art( as indicated in Pinkham, col 9 line 13-17, col 9 lines 18-27) ); pre-processing, by the computer, the reference document and the reference translation by building an electronic content data structure of the reference document and the reference translation, wherein building the electronic content data structure comprises building, by the computer, a translation glossary through statistical analysis and comparison with existing databases (see Pinkham, col 7 lines 23-27 creates the logical form transfer mappings, col 7 lines 28-48 discusses the mapping database 318 and 308( statistical word association learner) and 327( comparison with existing database) ; col 6 lines, 57-63 Word pairs 338 are placed into an association list 320 that is used during machine translation as discussed further below. Each entry for the word pairs in association list 320 also includes a part of speech for each word in the entry. Thus, association list 320 represents a machine-created bilingual dictionary(translation glossary)); identifying, by the computer, at least one translation entity in the source document(see Pinkham, col 7 line 53- col 8 line 5 After an optimal set of matching transfer mappings is found, matching component 324 creates links on nodes in the source logical form 352 to copies of the corresponding target logical form segments received by the transfer mappings, to generate linked logical form 354 ); and translating by the computer, the at least one translation entity as a function of the electronic content data structure of the reference document and the reference translation (see Pinkham, col 8 lines 6-16 transfer component 326 receives linked logical form 354 from matching component 324 and creates a target logical form 356 that will form the basis of the target translation. Col 8 lines 51-58 the resulting target logical form 356 is provided to a generation component 328, which is illustratively a rule-based, application-independent generation component that maps from target logical form 356 to the target string (or output target sentence) 358. Generation component 328 may illustratively have no information regarding the source language of the input logical forms, and work exclusively with information passed to it by transfer component 326 ).
Pinkham teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, however to further teach translation of source document and further prosecution, Mathur teaches a computer-implemented method for a machine translation of a source document in a source language to a target document in a target language (see Mathur, col 1 line 65-67), comprising: receiving, by a computer, the source document in a digital format having a human readable content for content machine translation (see Mathur, Fig. 7, col 10, line 32, At 706, the distributed translation system receives a translation request for a document); triggered by the receiving of the source document, prompting to dynamically obtain a reference document in a digital format and a reference translation in a digital format, wherein the reference translation comprises a translation of the reference document, wherein the reference document is obtained without pre-fetching action by a computer program (see Mathur, col 3 lines 61-64 indicates various examples of parallel data including the request for translation which parallel data to be used ( interpreted as reference documents and translation absent pre-fetching) ; see Mathur, col 10 lines 11-14, At 702, the distributed translation system receives translation examples. The translation examples(interpreted as reference document and reference translation) may sometimes be referred to as parallel data; see Mathur, col 10 lines 45-55 the distribution translation system loads and indexes the parallel data once the translation request is received ( without pre-fetch) ); pre-processing, by the computer, the reference document and the reference translation by building an electronic content data structure of the reference document and the reference translation(see Mathur, col 10 lines 19-20 At 704, the distributed translation system ingests and stores the parallel data(reference document). Col 11, lines 3-4, At 712, the distributed translation system generates an additionally trained neural network ( content model) using the top examples); identifying, by the computer, at least one translation entity in the source document(see Mathur, col 10, lines 62-64 At 710, the distributed translation system determines the applicability of translation examples in the parallel data to the source text. Mathur, col 9 lines 22-27 For example, a translation system, such as the translation system 102 depicted in FIG. 1, analyzes source text 602 to identify portions of the text(translation entity) for which there are applicable examples in the parallel data . In at least one embodiment, each portion comprises one or more sentences, paragraphs, or other textual units ); and translating by the computer, the at least one translation entity as a function of the electronic content data structure of the reference document and the reference translation (see Mathur, col 11 lines 23-25 At 714, the distributed translation system responds to the translation request by translating the source text, using the additionally-trained neural network).
The claim is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Pinkham in view of Mathur. Pinkham teaches all of the claimed machine translation using source texts and reference texts and translation by building a word association list without using an authored dictionary . Mathur teaches method for translating portions of the source text based on translation examples. It would have been obvious in the user device art, as taught by Mathur, to parallel data for machine translation to enable dynamic processing of the learning by the machine learning model of Pinkham. Using the known technique of parallel data for machine translation as taught by Mathur to improve a parallel processing and learning of the reference document and translation of Pinkham, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to improve the machine translation method of Pinkham in the same manner as the parallel translation data as set forth in Mathur (see Mathur, col 2 lines 32-36).
Regarding claim 2, Pinkham in view of Mathur teach method of claim 1. Mathur further teaches wherein the reference document comprises at least one of the following: a partial sample document of the source document, a complete sample document of the source document, or a link to the reference document (see Mathur, col 5 lines 20-29, parallel data 202 comprises a plurality of translation examples 204a-n, each of which comprises a corresponding source language phrase 206a-n and a target language phrase 207a-n. the parallel data is provided by the user as one or more documents in a first language that have been annotated with desired translations to a second language). The same motivation to combine as claim 1 is used.
Regarding claim 3, Pinkham in view of Mathur teach method of claim 1. Mathur further teaches wherein the reference translation comprises at least one of the following: a partial machine translation of the reference document, a complete translation of the reference document, or a link to the reference translation (see Mathur, col 5 lines 20-29, parallel data 202 comprises a plurality of translation examples 204a-n, each of which comprises a corresponding source language phrase 206a-n and a target language phrase 207a-n. the parallel data is provided by the user as one or more documents in a first language that have been annotated with desired translations to a second language). The same motivation to combine as claim 1 is used.
Regarding claim 6, Pinkham in view of Mathur teach method of claim 1. Pinkham further teaches wherein building, by the computer, the translation glossary comprises building an electronic content data structure with a special terminology, wherein the special terminology further comprises performing, by the computer, a statistical analysis of frequency of words and phrases in the reference document and the reference translation as compared to the frequency of the words and phrases in general (see Pinkham, col 6 lines 22-62 discusses performing statistical analysis using the source and target logical forms and creating word association pairs , Word pairs 338 are placed into an association list 320 that is used during machine translation, association list 320 represents a machine-created bilingual dictionary ( glossary) ).
Regarding claim 7, is directed to a tangible and non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to the method claim presented in claim 1 and is rejected under the same grounds stated above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, is directed to a tangible and non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to the method claim presented in claim 2 and is rejected under the same grounds stated above regarding claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, is directed to a tangible and non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to the method claim presented in claim 3 and is rejected under the same grounds stated above regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, is directed to a tangible and non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to the method claim presented in claim 6 and is rejected under the same grounds stated above regarding claim 6.
Regarding claim 13, is directed to a computer-programmed system claim corresponding to the method claim presented in claim 1 and is rejected under the same grounds stated above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, is directed to a computer-programmed system claim corresponding to the method claim presented in claim 2 and is rejected under the same grounds stated above regarding claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, is directed to a computer-programmed system claim corresponding to the method claim presented in claim 3 and is rejected under the same grounds stated above regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, Pinkham in view of Mathur teach the computer-programmed system of claim 13. Pinkham further teaches wherein the processor is configured to build a translation glossary of at least one term in the reference document and the reference translation (see Pinkham col 6 lines 57-63 association list 320 represents a machine-created bilingual dictionary.).
Regarding claim 18, is directed to a computer-programmed system claim corresponding to the method claim presented in claim 6 and is rejected under the same grounds stated above regarding claim 6.
Claims 4, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinkham et. al. US Patent, 7,356,457 in view of Mathur et. al. US Patent 11,769,019 further in view of Gusakov et. al., US PgPub. 2015/0120273.
Regarding claim 4, Pinkham in view of Mathur teach method of claim 1. However, Pinkham in view of Mathur fail to teach wherein the translation entity comprises at least one of the following: a sequence of words bounded by a period, or a sequence of words bounded by a line break.
However, Gusakov teaches wherein the translation entity comprises at least one of the following: a sequence of words bounded by a period, or a sequence of words bounded by a line break (see Gusakov, [0023] In block 204, the text content of the source file 104 is then divided into segments based on the Segmentation Rule Exchange(SRX) compatible parser. The SRX file governs how a body of text is broken down into small pieces in a computer-assisted translation (CAT) tool; the SRX parser interpreted to be used to process the source text to determine the translation entity including sequence of words bounded by a period/line break).
Pinkham, Mathur and Gusakov are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they relate to methods for translation system based on user preferences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pinkham in view of Mathur on the method for translating portions of the source text based on translation examples with the translated content with workflow history processing teachings of Gusakov to improve the specificity needed for translations of various types of communications( see Gusakov, [0003] ).
Regarding claim 10, is directed to a tangible and non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to the method claim presented in claim 4 and is rejected under the same grounds stated above regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, is directed to a computer-programmed system claim corresponding to the method claim presented in claim 4 and is rejected under the same grounds stated above regarding claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image2.png
261
231
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kaji, H et. al. "Learning translation templates from bilingual text." COLING 1992 Volume 2: The 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. 1992 teaches
creating a translation template with bilingual pair of sentences and then a word/phrase translation based on the template. This algorithm makes it possible to effectively extract a variety of knowledge from a bilingual corpus. Not only is the quality of translations improved, but machine translation systems can be easily customized(see Kaji, Fig. 1).
Suzuki., US Patent 7,295,964 teaches a method that selects a translation word from the plurality of translation word candidates by using the target language document database (see Suzuki, Fig. 1).
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 NANDINI SUBRAMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-3916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:00pm - 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, Bhavesh M Mehta can be reached at (571)272-7453. 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.
/NANDINI SUBRAMANI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2656
/BHAVESH M MEHTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights