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 .
This communication is in response to application 18/264,932 filed on 08/13/2024. Claims 1-16 are currently pending and are examined. Claims 1-16 are rejected as follows
Claim Objections
The claims 3, 6-9, and 11 are objected to because the claim amendments are improper. The applicant removed and added text without proper notation. (i.e. “viewing means” changed to “browsing means” without proper strike through and underlines). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim amendments are examined as written. Subsequently filed improper amendments will not be examined.
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.
Claim 1, 5, 10, 11, and 14: The function of the “procedure requesting means” is to receive a user request and forward the request to agent.
Claim 3: The function of the “browsing means” is to display registered agent information.
Claim 7: The function of the “translating means” is to display information and support a plurality of languages.
Claim 8: The function of the “translation requesting means” is to display registered agent information and receive user requests.
Claim 11: The function of the “payment means” is to send payment to an agent.
Claim 12: The function of the “instruction means” is to execute a set of instructions in one operation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitations “procedure requesting means”, “browsing means”, “translating means”, “translation request means”, “payment means”, and “instruction means” invokes 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 function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no association between the structure and the functions of the limitations recited above, and it is unknown what structure and algorithms performs the functions. For example, the specification ties the “procedure requesting means” to a structural computing device, but there is no algorithm as to how the computing device performs the function. Therefore, the claims 1-16 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Further the claim limitations “browsing means”, invokes 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 function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of the claimed “browsing means”. 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.
Further, it is known that the “procedure requesting means” is executed by “a processor such as a CPU”. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitations are interpreted to be general purpose computer components (similar to the structure provided for “procedure requesting means”) that perform the functions listed in the 112(f) claim interpretation.
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.
Claims 15 and 16 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. The claims describe use of a system to perform a procedure or execute a program, see MPEP 2173.05(q).
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 1-16 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 application invokes use of 112(f) for various means plus functions limitations outlined in the claim interpretation section above. The examiner looks to the specification and does not see the necessary structures and algorithms that outline how the functions are performed. Therefore, the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement and are rejected under 112(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The dependent claim recites an “agent” having an authority to operate in foreign country. This does not constitute a further limitation because description of the agent information does not limit the storage of agent information in claim 1, (i.e. a patent agent with the ability to practice in another country, does not limit claimed computer system). Therefore, the claim fails to limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) with no practical application and without significantly more.
Claims 1-16 is a system. Thus, each claim on its face is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 USC 101. However, claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). The independent claim 1 recites a system for requesting a procedure by a registered agent in regards to intellectual property applications. These elements are being interpreted as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, etc.) A system with the purpose of allowing users to work with registered agents on intellectual property matters, falls under “agreements in the form of contracts and legal obligation”. The claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites an “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed towards a system to implement the identified abstract idea of commercial or legal interactions (i.e. an applicant working with an agent on intellectual property matters) in a general computer environment. For instance, the additional elements or combination of elements other than the abstract ideas themselves include the elements such as a “processing unit” and “information storage unit”. These claim elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general computer environment. The machines merely act as a modality to implement the abstract idea and are not indicative of integration into a practical application (i.e., the additional elements are simply used as a tool to perform the abstract idea), see MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, these elements do not themselves amount to an improvement to the interface or computer, to a technology or another technical field.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A Prong Two analysis, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
In regards to the dependent claims
Regarding Claim 5, the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea in that it is directed to a mental process (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The claim recites a system to analyze agent data and select the appropriate agent based on data. These claim elements are being interpreted as concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Receiving data, analyzing, and selecting an agent can equivalently be achieved by human observation and evaluation of user and agent data. The claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Further, the application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fails to amount to significantly more for the same reasons and analysis of the independent claim, (see independent claim “apply it” analysis, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding Claims 2-4, and 6-16 introduce no new additional abstract ideas or new additional elements and do not impact analysis under 35 USC 101.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Qin (US 20180350014 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Qin teaches:
A procedure requesting system for a user who desires a procedure to request a procedure by an agent in a procedure with an intellectual property office, the procedure requesting system comprising: an information processing unit that includes an agent information storage unit in which information on an agent is registered; [(Para 0007) “the database is configured to store agent information, applicant information, and case information”]
and procedure requesting means by which the user requests a procedure by an agent registered in the agent information storage unit. [(Para 0074) “In step 306, the applicant selects an agent from agents who meet the recommendation conditions via the corresponding client 10, and transmits the result of selection to the information management server… the review and adjudication request management module 203 transmits an agent entrustment instruction to the terminal 50 of the agent, establishes an information exchange platform between the client 10 and the confirmed agent terminal for the applicant and the agent to exchange information, and initiates a trademark opposition/review request procedure.”]
Regarding Claim 2, Qin further teaches:
wherein the information processing unit includes a user information storage unit in which information on the user is registered. [(Para 0007) “the database is configured to store agent information, applicant information, and case information”]
Regarding Claim 3, Qin further teaches:
comprising browsing means by which the user browses agent information registered in the agent information storage unit. [(Para 0082) “On an Agent Selection page displayed on the client 10, the trademark applicant may select several registered agents according to his/her own requirements” (Para 0020) “the trademark agent query and confirmation module is configured to query for agents in the database for the client to select;”]
Regarding Claim 4, Qin further teaches:
wherein information registered in the agent information storage unit includes information on evaluation for the agent. [(Abstract) “The method comprises the following steps: receiving trademark objection/reexamination request information transmitted by the client, … and evaluating the agent.” (Para 0006) “the information management server is configured to… perform agent screening, …”, (Para 0007) “the database is configured to store agent information, applicant information, and case information”]
Regarding Claim 5, Qin further teaches:
comprising an agent automatic selection unit that automatically selects an agent from among agents registered in the agent information storage unit, [(Para 0021) “the trademark agent recommendation module is configured to select agents who meet rules as candidate agents and recommend the candidate agents to the client of the applicant;”]
wherein the agent automatic selection unit selects an appropriate agent based on a procedure request content of the user via the procedure requesting means and information on agents registered in the agent information storage unit. [(Para 0038) “Furthermore, the procedure of screening the agents and recommending agents to the client in the step 2) is: screening out agents who meet the recommendation conditions under the recommendation rules according to the case response information”]
Regarding Claim 6, Qin further teaches:
wherein the agent has an authority that allows a procedure with an intellectual property office in a foreign country to the user. [(Para 0036) “Furthermore, the agent condition information includes agent price, … and region of the agent.”]
Regarding Claim 10, Qin further teaches:
comprising a fee receiving unit that receives various fees from the user, [(Para 0008) “the fee payment server is configured to accept instructions from the information management server, and carry out fee query and payment;”]
Regarding Claim 11, Qin further teaches:
wherein the fee receiving unit includes: a fee allocating unit that allocates various fees received from the user to a system usage fee and an amount equivalent to payment to the agent to whom the procedure requesting means makes a request; [(Para 0006) “the information management server is configured to… control payment of agent fee made by the fee payment server, and monitor case progress” (Para 0008) “the fee payment server is configured to accept instructions from the information management server, and carry out fee query and payment”, ]
and payment means by which the amount equivalent to payment is sent to the agent. [(Para 0040) “Furthermore, the step 5) further comprises the following steps: monitoring the case progress… transferring the fee to the account of the agent in the agent terminal.”]
Regarding Claim 12, Qin further teaches:
comprising instruction means by which payment for various fees to the fee receiving unit and a procedure request to the agent by the user are instructed in one operation. [(Para 0075) “In that step, the payment assurance module 209 monitors the applicant payment situation in the entire process, and notifies the fee payment server 40 for the application in “payment requested” status; the fee payment server 40 mails a bill to the client of the applicant; the fee payment server 40 changes the status of the application for which the fee is received to “application in progress”; after the application is finished (the result may be “successful”, “failed” or “others”), the system changes the status of the application to “paid”; the fee payment server 40 pays the agent fee to the agent, and set the application status flag (e.g., finished—successful).”]
Regarding Claim 13, Qin further teaches:
comprising a procedure request document preparing unit that automatically prepares a document related to a procedure request to be presented to the agent based on information registered in the user information storage unit. [(Para 0035) “Furthermore, the step 1) further comprises the following steps: the information management server parsing the trademark opposition/review request information, generating applicant information, trademark opposition/review case information, and agent condition information; querying in a database according to the agent condition information; transmitting the applicant information and trademark opposition/review case information to agent terminals of queried eligible agents; the agent terminals feeding back case response information to the information management server”, (Para 0052) “The information management server 20 receives applicant registration information transmitted from the clients 10, carries out classified management for the clients 10”, (Para 0063) “The agent confirmation module 206 receives confirmation information transmitted from the client 10, confirms the agent, and transmits the confirmation information to the client 10 and the corresponding agent terminal 50.”]
Regarding Claim 14, Qin further teaches:
wherein a predetermined input form is provided for registration to the user information storage unit, [(Para 0015) “the applicant registration management module is configured to receive registration information from a client, register the applicant, and set a status flag to represent a rank of the client;”]
the procedure request document preparing unit conducts document preparation based on a content input in the input form, [(Para 0050) “each client 10 transmits applicant registration information to the information management server 20 and obtains applicant ID and password; receives input from the applicant, and transmits trademark opposition/review request information to the information management server 20;
and a document prepared by the procedure request document preparing unit is presented to the agent via the procedure requesting means to make a procedure request. [(Para 0035) “Furthermore, the step 1) further comprises the following steps: the information management server parsing the trademark opposition/review request information, generating applicant information, … transmitting the applicant information and trademark opposition/review case information to agent terminals of queried eligible agents; the agent terminals feeding back case response information to the information management server”, (Para 0070) “In step 303, the information management server 20 receives the trademark opposition/review case request information transmitted from the client 10, … and transmits applicant information and case information to terminals 50 of agents who meet the agent conditions.”]
Regarding Claim 15, Qin further teaches:
A procedure requesting method for a user who desires a procedure to request a procedure by an agent in a procedure with an intellectual property office, wherein the procedure requesting system according to claim 1 is used. [(Para 0074) “In step 306, the applicant selects an agent from agents who meet the recommendation conditions via the corresponding client 10, and transmits the result of selection to the information management server… the review and adjudication request management module 203 transmits an agent entrustment instruction to the terminal 50 of the agent, establishes an information exchange platform between the client 10 and the confirmed agent terminal for the applicant and the agent to exchange information, and initiates a trademark opposition/review request procedure.”]
Regarding Claim 16, Qin further teaches:
A program for executing a function related to the procedure requesting system according to claim 1. [(Para 0004) “In order to attain the object described above, the trademark information management system provided in the present invention comprises clients, an information management server, a database, a fee payment server, and agent terminals” (Para 0074) “In step 306, the applicant selects an agent from agents who meet the recommendation conditions via the corresponding client 10, and transmits the result of selection to the information management server… the review and adjudication request management module 203 transmits an agent entrustment instruction to the terminal 50 of the agent, establishes an information exchange platform between the client 10 and the confirmed agent terminal for the applicant and the agent to exchange information, and initiates a trademark opposition/review request procedure.”]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin (US 20180350014 A1) in view of Quinn (US 20120036077 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Qin teaches the limitations of claim 1. Qin does not teach but Quinn does teach:
wherein the information processing unit includes translating means for supporting a plurality of languages in registration and display of information. [(Para 0006) “sending at least some of the order form information to a translation partner when translation into one or more appropriate languages is necessary, receiving one or more translations from the translation partner”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the use of a user and agent intellectual property system (Qin), with a translation process (Quinn). Not only are both references in the same field of use, one of ordinary skill would recognize that translation features would be helpful in international and foreign intellectual property applications. Incorporating translation features would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Qin and Quinn teach the limitations of claim 7. Qin further teaches:
wherein the translating means includes: a translation agent information storage unit in which information on a translation agent is registered; and translation requesting means by which the user browses information on a translation agent registered in the translation agent storage unit, makes a selection, and requests a translation. [The claims recite a storage unit in which agent information is held, a means for browsing information on agents, selecting an agent, and requesting a procedure; (Para 0007) “the database is configured to store agent information, applicant information, and case information”, (Para 0020) “the trademark agent query and confirmation module is configured to query for agents in the database for the client to select”; The data type or agent type (translation agent) does not functionally change how the storage stores the information, how the user browses for an agent, and how the user selects an agent to perform a procedure (translations, submitting documents, drafting, fees, etc.) Therefore, the agent type (translator) and procedure type (translation) are nonfunctional descriptive features that do not carry patentable weight;
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Qin and Quinn teach the limitations of claim 8. Qin further teaches:
wherein information registered in the translation agent information storage unit includes information on evaluation for the translation agent. [The claims recite agent information being stored; (Abstract) “The method comprises the following steps: receiving trademark objection/reexamination request information transmitted by the client… and evaluating the agent”, (Para 0007) “the database is configured to store agent information, applicant information, and case information”; The agent type (translation agent, patent agent, foreign agent, etc.) does not functionally change how the storage stores an evaluation. Therefore, the agent type is a nonfunctional descriptive feature that does not carry patentable weight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Truong, whose telephone number is 703-756-5883. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (EST)
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Uber SPE can be reached on 571-270-3923. 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.
/B.L.T./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626