DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 recite limitations which invoke 35 USC 112(f).
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) in connection with the failure of the specification to describe structures corresponding to the limitations which invoke 35 USC 112(f).
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
The rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/19/2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see page 14, that the claim “is not an intangible product”. The claims were not rejected for failing to be directed to one of the four statutory categories, so this point is moot.
Applicant further argues, see page 14, that “the steps involve machine learning implemented by the computer device, which cannot be performed in the human mind”. The rejection did not identify the machine learning per se as being a mental process, so this point is moot.
Applicant further argues, see page 14, as follows: “Here, the claim is not merely reciting
mathematical judgments, but rather defines how label spaces are transformed, constrained, and
operationally coupled to model training by the plurality of classification models, a summator,
and an inverse mapper, in a manner that exists only in a computational environment.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The training is recited at a high level of generality and the various components amount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer equipment.
Applicant further argues, see page 15, as follows: “Further, claim 1 includes elements related to "obtaining, by the computer device and in response to receiving an inputted sample, a prediction of a time length based on the generated machine learning model, the inputted sample comprising user data of a user and object data of an object, and the prediction of the time length representing a time length that the user spends viewing the object; and recommending, by the computer device, the object to the user based on the prediction of the time length." The steps are specific to machine learning model training, generating and object recommendation, and all these steps are implemented by the computer device.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. This is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not make the claim eligible.
Applicant further argues, see page 15, that the recitation of training/generating the machine learning model integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The training is recited at a high level of generality and the various components amount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer equipment.
Applicant further argues, see pages 15-16, that deploying the machine learning model in the real world inference for the object recommendation integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Providing a recommendation is part of the abstract idea, so providing the recommendation cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant further argues, see pages 16-17, that the claimed techniques output prediction labels that are more accurate when a long tail effect is present. Examiner respectfully disagrees. To the extent that the claims reflect this improvement, it is an improvement in the realm of an abstract idea. Moreover, to the extent that the solution of this problem is meant as evidence that the claim is not well-understood, routine, conventional, the solution of the long tail problem would require steps which are part of the abstract idea. The well-understood, routine, conventional consideration applies only to additional elements.
The rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification does not provide antecedent basis for the term “inverse mapper”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “summator...being configured to determine a summation of a plurality of probabilities associated with the plurality of classification models” and “inverse mapper...configured to map the summation from the second label space into a label in the first label space” in independent claims 1, 11, and 20 and claims dependent thereon.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The term “summator” is mentioned only at published [0068], which does not describe a corresponding structure; and the term “inverse mapper” is not mentioned at all in the specification. Consequently, the specification fails to describe a corresponding structure for performing the claimed functions. See also rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and (b). For the purposes of examination, the summator and mapper will be interpreted as any computer hardware configured to perform the corresponding operations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The terms “summator” and “inverse mapper” invoke 35 USC 112(f) as indicated above, but the specification fails to describe the corresponding structure which performs the operations which these components are claimed to perform.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 limitations “summator” and “inverse mapper” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. The summator is mentioned only at published [0068] and does not describe a corresponding structure; and the mapper is not mentioned at all in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis
Each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2 Analysis
Claim 1 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
...determining, ..., a reference base based on any of the following: a quantile, a mean value, a summation, or a maximum value of the plurality of first labels for the plurality of training samples, the plurality of first labels being represented in a first label space; (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
mapping...the plurality of first labels into a plurality of second labels, respectively, based on the reference base, the plurality of second labels being represented in a second label space smaller than the first label space; (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
...describing an association relationship between a sample and a classification of a label, represented in the second label space, for the sample, (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
wherein the number of the plurality of classification models is determined according to a threshold ratio, and a group of second labels that are covered by the plurality of classification models being more than the threshold ratio of the plurality of second labels; and (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
...determine a summation of a plurality of probabilities associated with the plurality of classification models, (This is a recitation of a mathematical concept.)
...map the summation from the second label space into a label in the first label space, the label in the first label space representing a prediction of a time length that the user spends viewing the object; (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
...recommending, ..., the object to the user based on the prediction of the time length. (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
A computer-implemented method for object recommendation based on a machine learning model, the machine learning model comprises: a plurality of classification models, a summator, and an inverse mapper, and the method comprises: (This is a high level recitation of generic computer components for performing the abstract idea. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
receiving, ..., a plurality of first labels for a plurality of training samples, the plurality of training samples comprising user data of a plurality of users and object data of a plurality of objects, and the plurality of first labels representing a plurality of time lengths that the plurality of users spend viewing the plurality of objects respectively;
...by a computer device...by the computer device (This is a high level recitation of generic computer components for performing the abstract idea. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This applies to each of the recitations of the computer device.)
...training... the plurality of classification models based on the plurality of second labels and the plurality of training samples, a classification model in the plurality of classification models (This is a high level recitation of training a machine learning model, which amounts to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception with generic computer components. This does not make the claim eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
generating... the machine learning model based on the summator and the inverse mapper, the summator being configured..., and the inverse mapper being configured to...(This is a high level recitation of generating a machine learning model, which amounts to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception with generic computer components. This does not make the claim eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
... obtaining, by the computer device and in response to receiving an inputted sample, a prediction of a time length based on the generated machine learning model, the inputted sample comprising user data of a user and object data of an object, and the prediction of the time length representing a time length that the user spends viewing the object; and (This is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Moreover, sending or receiving data is well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by the court cases cited at MPEP 2106.05(d), example i. Receiving or transmitting data.)
...by the computer device... (This is a high level recitation of generic computer components for performing the abstract idea. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Claim 1 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Claim 2 recites at least the abstract idea identified above in the claim upon which it depends, and further recites
determining a mapping function for mapping a label in the first label space into a label in the second label space based on the reference base, the first label space representing a continuous space and the second label space representing an ordinal space; and (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
determining the second label based on the first label and the mapping function. (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
Claim 2 does not recite further additional elements which might integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Claim 3 recites at least the abstract idea identified above in the claim upon which it depends, and further recites
determining a normalizing function for converting the label in the first label space into a normalized value in a third label space based on the label in the first label space and the plurality of first labels; and (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
determining a bucket function for converting the normalized value into the label in the second label based on a comparison between the normalized value and a range of the third label space. (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
Claim 3 does not recite further additional elements which might integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Claim 4 recites at least the abstract idea identified above in the claim upon which it depends and further recites
determining the number of the buckets based on a predetermined accuracy level; (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
dividing the third label space into a plurality of buckets based on the determined number of the buckets; and (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
obtaining the bucket function based on a comparison between the normalized value and a plurality of ranges of the plurality of buckets. (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
Claim 4 does not recite further additional elements which might integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Claim 5 recites at least the abstract idea identified above in the claim upon which it depends and further recites
determining the number of the plurality of classification models based on a distribution of a plurality of second labels for the plurality of training samples among the second label space, the plurality of second labels being represented in the second label space; and (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
Claim 5 recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements from the claim upon which it depends, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
obtaining the plurality of classification models based on the determined number. (This is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Moreover, sending or receiving data is well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by the court cases cited at MPEP 2106.05(d), example i. Receiving or transmitting data.)
Claim 5 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Claim 6 recites at least the abstract idea identified above in the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements from the claim upon which it depends, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
with respect to the classification model in the plurality of classification models, obtaining the classification model by training an initial classification model with the training sample and a classification of whether the second label matches a classification criterion. (This is a high level recitation of training a machine learning model, which amounts to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception with generic computer components. This does not make the claim eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Claim 6 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Claim 7 recites at least the abstract idea identified above in the claim upon which it depends and further recites
determining an inverse mapping function for mapping a label in the second label space into a label in the first label space; and (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
Claim 7 recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements from the claim upon which it depends, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
generating a base model based on the plurality of classification models; (This is a high level recitation of training a machine learning model, which amounts to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception with generic computer components. This does not make the claim eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
... determining the machine learning model based on the base model and the inverse mapping function. (This is a high level recitation of training a machine learning model, which amounts to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception with generic computer components. This does not make the claim eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Claim 7 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Claim 9 recites at least the abstract idea identified above in the claim upon which it depends and further recites
in response to receiving a target sample, determining a target label in the first label space for the target sample based on the target sample and the machine learning model. (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
Claim 9 does not recite further additional elements which might integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Claim 10 recites at least the abstract idea identified above in the claim upon which it depends and further recites
determining an intermedia label in the second label space based on the targe sample and the base model in the machine learning model; and (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
determining the target label based on the intermedial label and the inverse mapping function. (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
Claim 10 does not recite further additional elements which might integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Claim 11 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 1 including substantially the same abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements considered above with respect to claim 1, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
An electronic device, comprising a computer processor coupled to a computer-readable memory unit, the memory unit comprising instructions that when executed by the computer processor implements a method for object recommendation based on a machine learning model, the machine learning model comprises: a plurality of classification models, a summator, and an inverse mapper, and the method comprises: (This is a high level recitation of generic computer components for performing the abstract idea. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Claim 11 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Regarding claims 12-19, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Claim 12-19 recite substantially similar subject matter to claims 2-7 and 9-10, respectively, and are rejected with the same rationale.
Claim 20 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 1 including substantially the same abstract idea.
Claim 20 recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements considered above with respect to claim 1, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
A non-transitory computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by an electronic device to cause the electronic device to perform a method for object recommendation based on a machine learning, the machine learning model comprises: a plurality of classification models, a summator, and an inverse mapper, and the method comprises: (This is a high level recitation of generic computer components for performing the abstract idea. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Claim 20 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Markus A Vasquez whose telephone number is (303)297-4432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10AM to 2PM PT.
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, Li Zhen can be reached at (571) 272-3768. 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.
/MARKUS A. VASQUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2121
Prosecution Insights