Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 11/29/2022, which claims priority from provisional application 63/302496 filed on 1/24/2022. Claims 1-21 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 20 and 21 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If itis determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019 PEG for more details of the analysis.
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Claims 1-5 are drawn to an apparatus, claim 6 is drawn to a method and claims 7-11 are drawn to recording medium storing a computer program, therefore each of these claim groups falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater; Step 1). Nonetheless, the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significant more (Step 2A, see below). Independent claims 1, 20 and 21 are non-verbatim but similar in claim construction, hence share the same rationale that the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows:
As to claim 1:
Claim 1 recites “A method comprising, by a client system: receiving, at the client system, a user input from a first user, wherein the user input corresponds to a task; determining that executing the task is to be triggered by one or more client-side events being satisfied and one or more server-side events being satisfied; determining that the one or more client-side events are satisfied; sending, from the client system to a remote server, a first indication that the one or more client-side events are satisfied, wherein the first indication comprises no privacy-sensitive information regarding the one or more client-side events; receiving, at the client system from the remote server, a second indication of the one or more server-side events being satisfied; and executing the task.”
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “determining that executing the task is to be triggered by one or more client-side events being satisfied and one or more server-side events being satisfied;” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of user observation of event and user evaluation of satisfying trigger, which is an observation or evaluation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “determining that the one or more client-side events are satisfied;” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of user evaluation of satisfying trigger, which is an observation or evaluation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “client system”, “remote server” and “server” are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, this limitation “receiving, at the client system, a user input from a first user, wherein the user input corresponds to a task;” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “receiving”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, This limitation “executing the task” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
This limitation “sending, from the client system to a remote server, a first indication that the one or more client-side events are satisfied, wherein the first indication comprises no privacy-sensitive information regarding the one or more client-side events;” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
This limitation “receiving, at the client system from the remote server, a second indication of the one or more server-side events being satisfied;” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
No, this limitation “client system”, “remote server” and “server” are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, this limitation “receiving, at the client system, a user input from a first user, wherein the user input corresponds to a task;” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “receiving”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
No, This limitation “executing the task” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
This limitation “sending, from the client system to a remote server, a first indication that the one or more client-side events are satisfied, wherein the first indication comprises no privacy-sensitive information regarding the one or more client-side events;” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
This limitation “receiving, at the client system from the remote server, a second indication of the one or more server-side events being satisfied;” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
Furthermore, regarding dependent claims 2-19 which are dependent on claim 1, the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more as highlighted below in the claim limitations by evaluating the claim limitations under Step 2A and 2B:
Dependent claims 2-19
Incorporates the mental process rejections of independent claim 1.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. No.
The dependent claims as analyzed above, do not recite limitations that integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. In addition, the claim limitations do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). Therefore, the claims do not recite any limitations, when considered individually or as a whole, that recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more”, see MPEP 2106.05; and therefore, as a whole the claims are not patent eligible.
As shown above, the dependent claims do not provide any additional elements that when considered individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified. Therefore, as a whole the dependent claims do not recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite, when claim elements are examined individually and as a whole, elements that the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Challa et al (US 10978056 B1).
Referring to claims 1, 20 and 21, Challa discloses a method comprising, by a client system:
receiving, at the client system, a user input from a first user, wherein the user input corresponds to a task; (summary of Challa, assistant system receives user input from client system, which is a type of task, where the system proactively execute tasks based on user’s input)
determining that executing the task is to be triggered by one or more client-side events being satisfied and one or more server-side events being satisfied; (col. 49, lines 10-18 of Challa, “The dashboard functionality may be displayed to the first user at any appropriate time (e.g., following an input from the first user summoning the dashboard functionality, following the occurrence of a particular event or trigger action). The dashboard functionality may allow the first user to modify one or more of the first user's current privacy settings at any time, in any suitable manner (e.g., redirecting the first user to the privacy wizard).” Also Summary of Challa discloses of user input assign an event which triggers the system/server side to do something according to the user’s input/client side trigger)
determining that the one or more client-side events are satisfied; (col. 49, lines 10-18 of Challa, “The dashboard functionality may be displayed to the first user at any appropriate time (e.g., following an input from the first user summoning the dashboard functionality, following the occurrence of a particular event or trigger action). The dashboard functionality may allow the first user to modify one or more of the first user's current privacy settings at any time, in any suitable manner (e.g., redirecting the first user to the privacy wizard).” Also Summary of Challa discloses of user input assign an event which triggers the system/server side to do something according to the user’s input/client side trigger)
sending, from the client system to a remote server, a first indication that the one or more client-side events are satisfied, wherein the first indication comprises no privacy-sensitive information regarding the one or more client-side events; (col. 50, lines 1-6 of Challa, “If the privacy settings for the object do not allow it to be surfaced to, discovered by, or visible to the user, the object may be excluded from the search results. Although this disclosure describes enforcing privacy settings in a particular manner, this disclosure contemplates enforcing privacy settings in any suitable manner.” Hence, the first indication are satisfied as the event is trigger, the first indication is no privacy-sensitive information/not visible to users due to privacy setting)
receiving, at the client system from the remote server, a second indication of the one or more server-side events being satisfied; (col. 50, lines 7-27 of Challa, “In particular embodiments, different objects of the same type associated with a user may have different privacy settings. Different types of objects associated with a user may have different types of privacy settings. As an example and not by way of limitation, a first user may specify that the first user's status updates are public, but any images shared by the first user are visible only to the first user's friends on the online social network. As another example and not by way of limitation, a user may specify different privacy settings for different types of entities, such as individual users, friends-of-friends, followers, user groups, or corporate entities. As another example and not by way of limitation, a first user may specify a group of users that may view videos posted by the first user, while keeping the videos from being visible to the first user's employer. In particular embodiments, different privacy settings may be provided for different user groups or user demographics. As an example and not by way of limitation, a first user may specify that other users who attend the same university as the first user may view the first user's pictures, but that other users who are family members of the first user may not view those same pictures.” Here, the second indication is that after privacy setting is check, the user is able to share things to people who are allow to see verses not share things to people who are not allow to see and send that request to the server) and
executing the task. (col. 50, lines 7-27 of Challa, of Challa, sharing the information online with the privacy setting)
Referring to claim 2, Challa discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the one or more client-side events are based on one or more of time, location, a user activity associated with the first user, a device state associated with the client system, a pose associated with the client system, or object recognition. (col. 49, lines 10-18 of Challa, “The dashboard functionality may be displayed to the first user at any appropriate time (e.g., following an input from the first user summoning the dashboard functionality, following the occurrence of a particular event or trigger action). The dashboard functionality may allow the first user to modify one or more of the first user's current privacy settings at any time, in any suitable manner (e.g., redirecting the first user to the privacy wizard).” Also Summary of Challa discloses of user input assign an event which triggers the system/server side to do something according to the user’s input/client side trigger)
Referring to claim 3, Challa discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the one or more server-side events are based on one or more of time, social presence, entity update, a device state of another client system associated with another user, a pose another client system associated with another user, weather, or news. (col. 9, lines 26-37 of Challa, “User-generated content may include anything a user can add, upload, send, or “post” to the social-networking system 160”)
Referring to claim 4, Challa discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: generating, based on the one or more client-side events and the one or more server-side events, an event graph, wherein the event graph comprises a plurality of vertices and a plurality of edges connecting the vertices. (as shown in Fig. 7 and col. 40, line 50-col. 41, line 32 of Challa, social graph connecting users with events where the graph has plurality of vertices and edges that connects the vertices)
Referring to claim 5, Challa discloses the method of Claim 4, wherein each of the plurality of vertices is associated with one or more inputs and one or more outputs, wherein each of the one or more inputs and the one or more outputs represents an activation of an event, (as shown in Fig. 7 and col. 40, line 50-col. 41, line 32 of Challa, social graph connecting users with events where the graph has plurality of vertices and edges that connects the vertices, where the vertices have input and output connecting them) and wherein each of the plurality of vertices represents a computation comprising one or more of a subscription to a topic, an active output, or a de-active output, a logic computation, or an action. (as shown in Fig. 7, an action of “location old road” is an active output of the vertices)
Referring to claim 6, Challa discloses the method of Claim 4, wherein the event graph comprises one or more observer vertices, wherein each of the one or more observer vertices specifies a signal to be received. (as shown in Fig. 7 and col. 40, line 50-col. 41, line 32 of Challa, some of the vertices indicate action, under BRI, that’s is signal of the system being active and received)
Referring to claim 7, Challa discloses the method of Claim 4, wherein the event graph comprises one or more logic vertices, wherein each of the one or more logic vertices corresponds to a logic function. (as shown in Fig. 7 and col. 40, line 50-col. 41, line 32 of Challa, some of the vertices indicate action, under BRI, that’s is signal of the system being active and received and a logic function is inherent in any computer system with FPGA gate arrangements)
Referring to claim 8, Challa discloses the method of Claim 7, wherein the logic function comprises one or more of an AND function or an OR function. (as shown in Fig. 7 and col. 40, line 50-col. 41, line 32 of Challa, some of the vertices indicate action, under BRI, that’s is signal of the system being active and received and a logic function is inherent in any computer system with FPGA gate arrangements, i.g., when a vertices has two different connection edges with the same action “like” that is OR function of the logic gate)
Referring to claim 9, Challa discloses the method of Claim 4, wherein the event graph comprises one or more action vertices, wherein each of the one or more action vertices corresponds to a client-side action or a server-side action. (as shown in Fig. 7 and col. 40, line 50-col. 41, line 32 of Challa, some of the vertices indicate action, under BRI, that’s is signal of the system being active and received and a logic function is inherent in any computer system with FPGA gate arrangements)
Referring to claim 10, Challa discloses the method of Claim 4, wherein the task comprises an if-this-then-that (IFTTT) instruction. (col. 20, line 65-col. 21, line 14 of Challa, “The ontology may also comprise information of how the slots/meta-slots may be grouped, related within a hierarchy where the higher level comprises the domain, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. The generic entity resolution 242 may resolve the entities by categorizing the slots and meta slots into different generic topics. In particular embodiments, the resolving may be also based on the ontology data extracted from the graphs 330. The ontology data may comprise the structural relationship between different slots/meta-slots and generic topics. The ontology may also comprise information of how the slots/meta-slots may be grouped, related within a hierarchy where the higher level comprises the topic, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.” Hence, a hierarchical ontology is a IFTTT layout with conditions before actions)
Referring to claim 11, Challa discloses the method of Claim 10, wherein the event graph allows the IFTTT instruction to be split into two or more portions between the client system and the remote server. (as shown in Fig. 7 and col. 40, line 50-col. 41, line 32 of Challa, social graph connecting users with events where the graph has plurality of vertices and edges that connects the vertices, where the vertices have input and output connecting them and also as shown in Fig. 7, some of the logic is client side, such as user’s action of “cooked” and server said logic is “receipt chicken parmesan then app “all about receipts”)
Referring to claim 12, Challa discloses the method of Claim 10 further comprising: determining, based on the IFTTT instruction, a time or a condition to turn on one or more sensors of the client system. (as shown in Fig. 7 and col. 40, line 50-col. 41, line 32 of Challa, social graph connecting users with events where the graph has plurality of vertices and edges that connects the vertices, where the vertices have input and output connecting them and also as shown in Fig. 7, some of the logic is client side, such as user’s action of “cooked” and server said logic is “receipt chicken parmesan then app “all about receipts”)
Referring to claim 13, Challa discloses the method of Claim 10, further comprising: determining a first portion of the IFTTT instruction is associated with the one or more client-side events and a second portion of the IFTTT instruction is associated with the one or more server-side events. (as shown in Fig. 7 and col. 40, line 50-col. 41, line 32 of Challa, social graph connecting users with events where the graph has plurality of vertices and edges that connects the vertices, where the vertices have input and output connecting them and also as shown in Fig. 7, some of the logic is client side, such as user’s action of “cooked” and server said logic is “receipt chicken parmesan then app “all about receipts”)
Referring to claim 14, Challa discloses the method of Claim 4, wherein the event graph comprises a first portion of client-side logic and a second portion of server-side logic, wherein the first indication further indicates that the first portion of the client-side logic of the event graph logic is satisfied, and wherein the second indication further indicates that the second portion of the server-side logic of the event graph logic is satisfied. (as shown in Fig. 7 and col. 40, line 50-col. 41, line 32 of Challa, social graph connecting users with events where the graph has plurality of vertices and edges that connects the vertices, where the vertices have input and output connecting them and also as shown in Fig. 7, some of the logic is client side, such as user’s action of “cooked” and server said logic is “receipt chicken parmesan then app “all about receipts”)
Referring to claim 15, Challa discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the privacy-sensitive information regarding the one or more client-side events comprises one or more of content of the one or more client-side events, a sensor signal from the client system, a location associated with the first user, a user activity associated with the first user, a user context associated with the first user, a user profile associated with the first user, a device state associated with the client system, a pose associated with the client system, an application executing on the client system, or an recognized object by the client system. (as shown in Fig. 7 and col. 40, line 50-col. 41, line 32 of Challa, social graph connecting users with events where the graph has plurality of vertices and edges that connects the vertices, where the vertices have input and output connecting them and also as shown in Fig. 7, some of the logic is client side, such as user’s action of “cooked” and server said logic is “receipt chicken parmesan then app “all about receipts”)
Referring to claim 16, Challa discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein determining that the one or more client-side events are satisfied comprises: capturing one or more sensor signals by one or more sensors of the client system; and analyzing the captured sensor signals to determine that the one or more client-side events are satisfied. (col. 54, line 54-col. 55, line 8 of Challa, user’s input to trigger event such as mouse click is a sensor event)
Referring to claim 17, Challa discloses the method of Claim 16, wherein the one or more sensor signals comprise one or more of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) signal, an audio signal, a GPS signal, an electromyography (EMG) signal, or a visual signal. (col. 5, line 60-col. 6, line 2 of Challa, GPS)
Referring to claim 18, Challa discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: presenting, at the client system, an execution result of the task. (col. 50, lines 7-27 of Challa, of Challa, sharing the information online with the privacy setting)
Referring to claim 19, Challa discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the second indication comprises no privacy-sensitive information regarding the one or more server-side events, and wherein the privacy-sensitive information regarding the one or more server-side events comprises one or more of location associated with a second user, a user activity associated with the second user, or user profile data associated with a second user. (col. 50, lines 7-27 of Challa, “In particular embodiments, different objects of the same type associated with a user may have different privacy settings. Different types of objects associated with a user may have different types of privacy settings. As an example and not by way of limitation, a first user may specify that the first user's status updates are public, but any images shared by the first user are visible only to the first user's friends on the online social network. As another example and not by way of limitation, a user may specify different privacy settings for different types of entities, such as individual users, friends-of-friends, followers, user groups, or corporate entities. As another example and not by way of limitation, a first user may specify a group of users that may view videos posted by the first user, while keeping the videos from being visible to the first user's employer. In particular embodiments, different privacy settings may be provided for different user groups or user demographics. As an example and not by way of limitation, a first user may specify that other users who attend the same university as the first user may view the first user's pictures, but that other users who are family members of the first user may not view those same pictures.” Here, the second indication is that after privacy setting is check, the user is able to share things to people who are allow to see verses not share things to people who are not allow to see and send that request to the server)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Salkola (US 10803050 B1): a method includes accessing a number of records describing a number of entities generated based on data collected from a number of data sources, where the records are grouped by data source, deduping the number of records in each group, selecting a data source as a core source, identifying, for a record in the core group, a candidate set including records from the non-core groups of records that satisfy conditions to be in the candidate set for the record, generating a feature vector for each pair of records between a record in the core group and a record in the candidate set, computing a probability that the pair of records describe a common entity for each pair of records, and linking the record in the candidate set to a globally unique entity identifier identifying a unique entity if the probability exceeds a threshold.
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://;www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e- mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIMEI JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at 571-270-1006. 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.
/HAIMEI JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights