DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
PRIORITY
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to CHINA 202211401992.X filed 11/10/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/28/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS as to the merits.
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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
i) In view of Step 1 of the analysis, claim(s) 1 is directed to a statutory category as a process and claim 12 is directed to a statutory category as a machine which each represent a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
ii) In view of Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1 and 12 recite the abstract idea of predicting a deployment plan based on provided data which constitutes an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
As per claim 1, the limitation of "predicting nucleic acid detection person-time in a preset future period in at least one of multiple areas based on epidemic information and environmental information in the multiple areas;” would be analogous to a person predicting a value based on provided information and thus fall under Mental Processes.
As per claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 12, the limitation of “determining a deployment plan for the nucleic acid detection points based on the predicted nucleic acid detection person-time” would be analogous to a person determining a deployment plan based on information provided and thus fall under Mental Processes.
As per claim 12, the limitation of "predicting nucleic acid detection person-time in a preset future period in at least one of multiple areas based on epidemic information and environmental information in the multiple areas; the epidemic information and the environmental information of the multiple areas being obtained based on the object platform” would be analogous to a person predicting a value based on provided information and thus fall under Mental Processes.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
iii) In view of Step 2A, Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitation in claim 12 of “transmitted to the management platform based on the sensor network platform;” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation in claim 12 of “transmitted to the management platform based on the sensor network platform;” alternatively can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
iv) In view of Step 2B, claims 1, 10 and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation in claim 12 of “transmitted to the management platform based on the sensor network platform;” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of claim 12 of “transmitted to the management platform based on the sensor network platform;” alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2 and 13 further recites a machine learning model which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2))
Dependent claims 3 and 14 further recites the prediction determination which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claims 4 and 15 further recites the values used in the prediction which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claims 5 further recites the receiving of information from a mobile terminal which are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 6 and 16 further recites the determination of the deployment plan which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claims 7 and 17 further recites the resultant of the determination of the deployment plan used in the prediction which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claims 8 and 18 further recites the resultant of the determination of the deployment plan used in the prediction which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claims 9 and 19 further recites the resultant of additional determinations of the deployment plan based on additional factors which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claims 10 and 20 further recites the transmitting and receiving of information from user platforms and sensors which are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 11 further recites the transmitting and receiving of information from user platforms and sensors which are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
v) Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
i) The term “nucleic acid detection person-time” in claims 1 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nucleic acid detection person-time” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification in [0058] provides an example of the term but not an explicit definition which can be read in to the claims. This renders the claims vague and indefinite.
ii) Claim 7 recites the limitation "wherein the position of the mobile detection point” however the prior recitation in claim 6 recites in the alternative “mobile detection point and/or a position of a fixed detection point.” The Examiner notes that due to the contingent limitation in claim 6 the claim may recite only a “position of a fixed detection point” and not a “mobile detection point” as required by claim 7 for which there would be no antecedent basis. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This analysis also applies to dependent claim 8 and the analogous issue in claims 16-18.
iii) The term “hot spot” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hot spot” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification in [0098] provides an example of the term but not an explicit definition which can be read in to the claims. This analysis further applies to recitation of the term in claims 7-9 and 16-19.
Appropriate correction is required.
All claims dependent upon a rejected base claim are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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.
7. Claims 1-2, 6-7, 10-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Firouzi, Farshad, et al. "Harnessing the power of smart and connected health to tackle COVID-19: IoT, AI, robotics, and blockchain for a better world." IEEE Internet of Things Journal 8.16 (2021): 12826-12846, hereafter Firouzi.
Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses A method for deploying nucleic acid detection points in a smart city, which is executed based on a management platform of an Internet of Things system for deploying nucleic acid detection points in a smart city, comprising:
predicting nucleic acid detection person-time (Firouzi. Page 12829, Right Column, In view of the 112 rejection above this term is read on by the PDT of patient testing and contract tracing) in a preset future period in at least one of multiple areas based on epidemic information and environmental information in the multiple areas; and (Page 12839, Right Column, “1) Rationale and Research Strategy: In order to “reopen” NC to typical activities, we must develop efficient surveillance designs to understand how widespread SARS-CoV-2 is, where and how people are most at risk of acquiring or transmitting it, and whether recovered individuals are immune and prevent the transmission of the virus. Contact patterns and underlying comorbidities are likely different for the most vulnerable groups, putting them at risk biologically and socially (COVID-19 cases are quickly climbing in the Hispanic/Latinx population, a group that has poor access to care).” Examiner Notes: The claimed epidemic information is seen in the determination of “how widespread SARS-CoV-2” of the prior art and the environmental information is seen in the “a network-targeted community sampling design can also direct testing to yield a higher proportion of results that indicate active infection and potentially differentiate venues or communities, where transmission is active and undiagnosed.”)
determining a deployment plan for the nucleic acid detection points based on the predicted nucleic acid detection person-time. (Firouzi. Page 12839, right column, 2nd paragraph, “complete electronic surveys and present for testing. We propose a network-targeted, short-term sampling strategy to identify active cases efficiently and reduce SARS-CoV 2 transmission in NC. With the end of statewide shelter-in place orders, any new COVID-19 case indicates that the case has had sufficient contact to acquire the infection and is likely to continue to have the same types of contacts, which can further spread the infection. Surveying the contact patterns of the case can locate where to deploy testing and where such testing is still limited.”)
Regarding Claim 2: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the predicting nucleic acid detection person-time in a preset future period in at least one of multiple areas based on epidemic information and environmental information in the multiple areas comprises: predicting nucleic acid detection person-time in the at least one area based on the processing of the epidemic information and environmental information of the multiple areas by a prediction model, the prediction model being a machine learning model. (Firouzi. Page 12836, right column, “2) ML Forecasting: This method predicts up to four weeks in advance and anticipates milestones, such as the maximum number of cases and when an outbreak will peak; this information enables healthcare providers and the CDC to anticipate and prepare for capacity needs.”)
Regarding Claim 6: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the determining a deployment plan for the nucleic acid detection points based on the predicted nucleic acid detection person-time comprises: determining at least one hot spot area based on the predicted nucleic acid detection person-time, the predicted nucleic acid detection person-time in the hot spot area satisfying a preset condition; and determining a position of a mobile detection point and/or a position of a fixed detection point based on the at least one hot spot area. (Firouzi. Page 12844, left column, “2) Data Refining of Confirmed Cases: The location data collected from the telecommunication company are the location data of a base station to which the confirmed person is connected. Therefore, they may be different from the actual location data of a confirmed person. To correct this deviation, EISS infers the moving path of the confirmed patient by applying ML technology through various interpolation, clustering, and classification algorithms based on the location data and access time of the base stations to which the confirmed terminal is connected.
3) Analysis of Confirmed Patient Movement: As shown in Fig. 14, EISS provides a map-based location service that supports epidemic investigators to analyze the movement of the confirmed person. EISS also supports a function that analyzes infection hotspots to derive and display the contact area between infected people. Based on the results of epidemiological investigations, the EISS visualizes the connection network between infected people.” Examiner notes the claimed hot spot is read on by the prior arts hot spot in view of the 112 rejection above.)
Regarding Claim 7: The reference discloses The method of claim 6, wherein the position of the mobile detection point is located between at least two hot spot areas. (Firouzi. Page 12844, left column, “2) Data Refining of Confirmed Cases: The location data collected from the telecommunication company are the location data of a base station to which the confirmed person is connected. Therefore, they may be different from the actual location data of a confirmed person. To correct this deviation, EISS infers the moving path of the confirmed patient by applying ML technology through various interpolation, clustering, and classification algorithms based on the location data and access time of the base stations to which the confirmed terminal is connected.
3) Analysis of Confirmed Patient Movement: As shown in Fig. 14, EISS provides a map-based location service that supports epidemic investigators to analyze the movement of the confirmed person. EISS also supports a function that analyzes infection hotspots to derive and display the contact area between infected people. Based on the results of epidemiological investigations, the EISS visualizes the connection network between infected people.” Examiner notes the claimed hot spot is read on by the prior arts hot spot in view of the 112 rejection above.)
Regarding Claim 10: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the Internet of Things system for deploying nucleic acid detection points in a smart city further comprises a user platform, a service platform, a sensor network platform, and an object platform; the object platform is used to obtain epidemic information and environmental information, and transmit them to the management platform through the sensor network platform; and the method further comprises: (Firouzi. Page 12830, left column, Section III, Role of IOT in Managing Covid-19) transmitting, based on the service platform, the deployment plan for the nucleic acid detection points to the user platform. (Firouzi. Page 12839, right column, 2nd paragraph, “complete electronic surveys and present for testing. We propose a network-targeted, short-term sampling strategy to identify active cases efficiently and reduce SARS-CoV 2 transmission in NC. With the end of statewide shelter-in place orders, any new COVID-19 case indicates that the case has had sufficient contact to acquire the infection and is likely to continue to have the same types of contacts, which can further spread the infection. Surveying the contact patterns of the case can locate where to deploy testing and where such testing is still limited.”)
Regarding Claim 11: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the management platform includes a general database of the management platform and several management sub-platforms; the sensor network platform includes several sensor network sub-platforms; different sensor network sub-platforms and different management sub-platforms correspondingly transmit and/or process data of different areas. (Firouzi. Page 12844, “System receives the data related to the confirmed case through an interface connected to the National Police Agency, credit card network, and telecommunication systems. EISS analyzes the data and converts them into a standard-based data format referring to oneM2M global IoT standards [63].”)
Regarding Claim 12: The reference discloses An Internet of Things system for deploying nucleic acid detection points in a smart city comprising an object platform, a sensor network platform, and a management platform; the management platform is configured to perform the following operations including:
predicting nucleic acid detection person-time (Firouzi. Page 12829, Right Column, In view of the 112 rejection above this term is read on by the PDT of patient testing and contract tracing) in a preset future period in at least one of multiple areas based on epidemic information and environmental information in the multiple areas; (Page 12839, Right Column, “1) Rationale and Research Strategy: In order to “reopen” NC to typical activities, we must develop efficient surveillance designs to understand how widespread SARS-CoV-2 is, where and how people are most at risk of acquiring or transmitting it, and whether recovered individuals are immune and prevent the transmission of the virus. Contact patterns and underlying comorbidities are likely different for the most vulnerable groups, putting them at risk biologically and socially (COVID-19 cases are quickly climbing in the Hispanic/Latinx population, a group that has poor access to care).” Examiner Notes: The claimed epidemic information is seen in the determination of “how widespread SARS-CoV-2” of the prior art and the environmental information is seen in the “a network-targeted community sampling design can also direct testing to yield a higher proportion of results that indicate active infection and potentially differentiate venues or communities, where transmission is active and undiagnosed.”) the epidemic information and the environmental information of the multiple areas being obtained based on the object platform, and transmitted to the management platform based on the sensor network platform; (Firouzi. Page 12844, left column, “2) Data Refining of Confirmed Cases: The location data collected from the telecommunication company are the location data of a base station to which the confirmed person is connected. Therefore, they may be different from the actual location data of a confirmed person. To correct this deviation, EISS infers the moving path of the confirmed patient by applying ML technology through various interpolation, clustering, and classification algorithms based on the location data and access time of the base stations to which the confirmed terminal is connected.”)
determining a deployment plan for the nucleic acid detection points based on the predicted nucleic acid detection person-time. (Firouzi. Page 12839, right column, 2nd paragraph, “complete electronic surveys and present for testing. We propose a network-targeted, short-term sampling strategy to identify active cases efficiently and reduce SARS-CoV 2 transmission in NC. With the end of statewide shelter-in place orders, any new COVID-19 case indicates that the case has had sufficient contact to acquire the infection and is likely to continue to have the same types of contacts, which can further spread the infection. Surveying the contact patterns of the case can locate where to deploy testing and where such testing is still limited.”)
Regarding Claim 13: The reference discloses The Internet of Things system of claim 12, wherein the management platform is further configured to perform the following operations including: predicting nucleic acid detection person-times in the at least one area based on the processing of the epidemic information and environmental information of the multiple areas by a prediction model, the prediction model being a machine learning model. (Firouzi. Page 12836, right column, “2) ML Forecasting: This method predicts up to four weeks in advance and anticipates milestones, such as the maximum number of cases and when an outbreak will peak; this information enables healthcare providers and the CDC to anticipate and prepare for capacity needs.”)
Regarding Claim 20: The reference discloses The Internet of Things system of claim 12, wherein the Internet of Things system for deploying nucleic acid detection points in a smart city further includes a user platform and a service platform; the service platform is used to transmit the deployment plan for the nucleic acid detection points to the user platform. (Firouzi. Page 12830, left column, Section III, Role of IOT in Managing Covid-19)
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 3-5, 8-9, 14-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as resolving all intervening issues such as the 101 and 112 rejections. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3, and similarly claim 14, recites: The methods of claim 2, wherein the prediction model is a graph neural network model, and the predicting nucleic acid detection person-time in a preset future period in at least one of multiple areas based on epidemic information and environmental information in the multiple areas comprises: building an area map based on the epidemic information and environmental information of the multiple areas, nodes of the area map corresponding to areas where a crowd gathering situation meets a preset requirement, and edges of the area map corresponding to roads between the areas; and predicting the nucleic acid detection person-time in the areas corresponding to the nodes based on the processing of the area map by the prediction model.
Claim 8, and similarly claim 18, recites: The method of claim 7, wherein the determining the position of the mobile detection point based on the at least one hot spot area comprises: determining at least one preset position based on the at least one hot spot area; predicting, after the mobile detection point is added to the at least one preset position, nucleic acid detection person-time in the at least one hot spot area and nucleic acid detection person-time in the added mobile detection point; evaluating an additional score of each of the at least one preset position based on the predicted nucleic acid detection person-time in the at least one hot spot area and in the added mobile detection point; and determining the position of the mobile detection point based on the additional score.
The closest prior art of record includes:
i) Kapoor, Amol, et al. "Examining covid-19 forecasting using spatio-temporal graph neural networks." arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.03113 (2020).
ii) Fritz, Cornelius, Emilio Dorigatti, and David Rügamer. "Combining graph neural networks and spatio-temporal disease models to improve the prediction of weekly COVID-19 cases in Germany." Scientific Reports 12.1 (2022): 3930.
iii) Davahli, Mohammad Reza, et al. "Predicting the dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States using graph theory-based neural networks." International journal of environmental research and public health 18.7 (2021): 3834.
However, the closest prior art of record does not explicitly teach or render obvious the limitations above,
particularly in combination with the other limitations within the claims. The dependent claims are allowable for at least the same reasons as their respective independent claims.
Conclusion
9. All Claims are rejected.
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i) Kapoor, Amol, et al. "Examining covid-19 forecasting using spatio-temporal graph neural networks." arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.03113 (2020).
ii) Fritz, Cornelius, Emilio Dorigatti, and David Rügamer. "Combining graph neural networks and spatio-temporal disease models to improve the prediction of weekly COVID-19 cases in Germany." Scientific Reports 12.1 (2022): 3930.
iii) Davahli, Mohammad Reza, et al. "Predicting the dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States using graph theory-based neural networks." International journal of environmental research and public health 18.7 (2021): 3834.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights