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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Applicants Arguments/Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 13 applicant argues
Similar to Ex Parte Hannun and in satisfaction of MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), the claims of the present case to not recite mental processes because the limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Specifically, currently amended claim 1 recites limitations that include "detecting an article within the digitized newspaper content of the newspaper image utilizing an article prediction model by detecting text columns of the newspaper image using a column prediction model,""generating, utilizing the article prediction model, a polygon defining boundaries of the article within the newspaper image by: determining, according to features extracted from pixels of the newspaper image, boundary box coordinates of the polygon" and "aligning the article with the text columns by adjusting one or more vertices of the boundary box coordinates to align the polygon with the text columns."
Accordingly, the limitations of the claims cannot be performed in the human mind. In particular, rather than merely reciting a generic computer that performs an abstract idea, the claim limitations are directed to a specific implementation that relies on computing devices executing machine-learning operations to efficiently detect newspaper articles defined by polygons. This process includes, in part, utilizing a specialized article prediction model to generate polygons defining article boundaries based on determining columns and correcting image rotation by adjusting vertices of the bounding box of the detected polygon.
Such processes cannot reasonably be performed in the human mind. See Specification at [0074]. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the currently amended claims are patent- eligible as they include more than merely mental processes and thus are not directed to an abstract idea.
The examiner disagrees with applicants arguments that the elements "detecting an article within the digitized newspaper content of the newspaper image utilizing an article prediction model by detecting text columns of the newspaper image using a column prediction model," "generating, utilizing the article prediction model, a polygon defining boundaries of the article within the newspaper image by: determining, according to features extracted from pixels of the newspaper image, boundary box coordinates of the polygon" and "aligning the article with the text columns by adjusting one or more vertices of the boundary box coordinates to align the polygon with the text columns." Can not be performed in the human mind. The examiner notes that no machine learning is actually claimed in this claim just a generic “models” no specialized models are required. On the contrary the claims merely list the result of the model without disclosing the underlying computational processes. A user could easily perform the functions detecting articles and columns and determine and aligning bounding boxes of the above elements in the mind using mental models.
On page 14-15 applicant argues
consistent with MPEP §2106.04(d), the claims in the present case are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims integrate the allegedly recited judicial exception into a practical application by achieving a technological solution to a technological problem specific to identifying and segmenting individual articles within newspaper images for extracting further data. In particular, the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application by improving the accuracy and efficiency of computing systems by utilizing a specialized article prediction model to generate polygons defining article boundaries via an article prediction model, and column prediction model. Specifically, the claimed limitations utilize a combination of features extracted from pixels of the newspaper image, utilizing an article prediction model to generate confidence scores of the boundary box of the polygon, and utilizing a column prediction model to detect text columns and further identify article boundaries. See Specification, [0028]- [0030].
The disclosed system is more effective, efficient, and accurate in generating identifying (and extracting information from) articles within digitized historical records, especially newspaper articles. See Specification at [0028]. The claimed limitations make major technical contributions to improving the computational efficiency and reliability of systems that accurately and efficiently detect newspaper articles within digitized images by utilizing polygons. See Specification at
[0028]-[0030].
Therefore, because the claims are directed to improvement of computer functionality in a technological problem and provide a specific implementation of a solution to the technological problem, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Thus, as the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1-20 under § 101 be withdrawn.
The examiner disagrees, The examiner notes that the only elements other than the abstract idea is the computer used to merely implement the abstract idea and the well known concept of optical character recognition. The examiner notes that these additional elements are insufficient to integrate into an abstract idea. The computer is merely used as a tool for implementing the abstract idea as no specific computer functions are required by the claim merely abstract concepts. OCR is a well-known computer process of recognizing characters recited at a high level of generality. Using OCR merely links the abstract idea to the general field of OCR.
Applicant further argues on page 15 and 16
Similar to the claims in BASCOM and in contrast to the assertions by the Office Action, the claim limitations of the currently amended claims, considered as a whole, amount to an inventive concept because the ordered combination of the limitations of the claims provides improvements to computing systems and procedures for providing arrangements of digital content items for display on client devices located within different time zones or geographic regions, as described above. In particular, the claimed limitations recite "detecting an article... utilizing an article prediction model by detecting text columns of the newspaper image using a column prediction model,""generating, utilizing the article prediction model, a polygon defining boundaries of the article... by: determining, according to features extracted from pixels of the newspaper image, boundary box coordinates of the polygon defining the boundaries of the article, generating, utilizing the article prediction model, a confidence score for the boundary box coordinates of the polygon; and aligning the article with the text columns by adjusting one or more vertices of thePage boundary box coordinates to align the polygon with the text columns," and "determining text within the polygon utilizing an optical character recognition model."
Specifically, as noted above, the claimed invention recites certain steps in a particular order, specifically detailing the utilization of confidence scores, features extracted from pixels of the newspaper image, and an article prediction model via a column prediction model, which allows for the system to align an article by adjusting one or more vertices of the boundary box coordinates with detected text columns. See Specification at [0028]-[0030]. This ordered combination of limitations, as in BASCOM, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea and is thus an inventive concept.
As stated above the elements argued by applicant are not “additional elements” but part of the abstract idea. The examiner notes that these elements cannot be relied upon to provide significantly more as they are part of the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 17-21, filed 3/19/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn. The examiner notes that newly amended subject mater “aligning the article with the text columns by adjusting one or more vertices of the boundary box coordinates to align the polygon with the text columns” is not disclosed by the prior art of record.
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 4 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.
Re claim 4 the examiner notes that claim 4 recites “a column prediction model” The examiner notes that a column prediction model has already been recited in the claim. It is unclear if this is the same article prediction model or a new article prediction model
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Re claim 1
The limitation of receiving a newspaper image depicting digitized newspaper content, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the context of this claim encompasses the user looking at the image and receiving it.
The limitation of detecting an article within the digitized newspaper content of the newspaper image utilizing an article prediction model by detecting text columns of the newspaper image using a column prediction model, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, detecting in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the detection using a mental column prediction.
The limitation of generating, utilizing the article prediction model, a polygon defining boundaries of the article within the newspaper image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating a polygon in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally thinking of the polygon.
The limitation of determining, according to features extracted from pixels of the newspaper image, boundary box coordinates of the polygon defining the boundaries of the article, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determining boundary box coordinates encompasses mentally determining the coordinates.
The limitation of generating, utilizing the article prediction model, a confidence score for the boundary box coordinates of the polygon, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating a confidence score in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally generating the confidence score.
The limitation of generating, aligning the article with the text columns by adjusting one or more vertices of the boundary box coordinates to align the polygon with the text column, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, aligning the article in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally aligning vertices of the bounding box with the columns.
The limitation of determining text within the polygon, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determining text within the polygon in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining the text.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – using a processor to perform the steps and performing OCR. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function o) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further OCR is a well-known computer process of recognizing characters recited at a high level of generality. This merely link the abstract idea to the general field of OCR. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. OCR is a well known computer process of recognizing characters recited at a high level of generality. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and well known OCR cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible
Re claim 2 The limitation of : extracting text features from the text within the polygon utilizing a domain-adapted information extraction model; and predicting, from the text features, entity names within the text of the polygon , is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, extracting and predicting in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally extracting the features and predicting the entities.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 3 The limitation of generating, using an article locality model, a locality prediction for the article based on the text within the polygon, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating a locality prediction in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining the prediction.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 4 The limitation of wherein detecting the article within the newspaper image comprises: determining text columns within the newspaper image using a column prediction model; and aligning the article within one or more of the text columns*, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, detecting and aligning in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally preforming the detection and alignment
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 5 The limitation of generating the polygon comprises generating an irregularly shaped polygon enclosing portions of multiple text columns within the newspaper image based on the article spanning the multiple text columns, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating the polygon in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally generating the polygon.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 6 The limitation of generating a second confidence score for boundary box coordinates of a second polygon defining boundaries of a second article within the newspaper image; determining an overlapping portion of the newspaper image comprising a portion of the polygon and a portion of the second polygon; and generating a modified polygon by subtracting the overlapping portion from the polygon by comparing the confidence score and the second confidence score, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating a score, determining and overlapping portion and generating a modified polygon in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining a score, mentally determining and overlapping polygon and mentally generating a modified polygon.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 7 The limitation of wherein generating the polygon defining the boundaries of the article comprises utilizing a column prediction model repurposed from an architectural building detection model., is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally generating polygon boundaries of the polygon from a mentally repurposed mentally model.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 8
The limitation of receive a newspaper image depicting digitized newspaper content, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the context of this claim encompasses the user looking at the image and receiving it.
The limitation of detect an article within the digitized newspaper content of the newspaper image utilizing an article prediction model by detecting text columns of the newspaper image using a column prediction model, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, detecting in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the detection using a mental column prediction model.
The limitation of generate, utilizing the article prediction model, a polygon defining boundaries of the article within the newspaper image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating a polygon in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally thinking of the polygon.
The limitation of determining, according to features extracted from pixels of the newspaper image, boundary box coordinates of the polygon defining the boundaries of the article, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determining boundary box coordinates encompasses mentally determining the coordinates.
The limitation of generating, utilizing the article prediction model, a confidence score for the boundary box coordinates of the polygon, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating a confidence score in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally generating the confidence score.
The limitation of generating, aligning the article with the text columns by adjusting one or more vertices of the boundary box coordinates to align the polygon with the text columns, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating aligning in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally aligning vertices with the columns.
The limitation of determine text within the polygon, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determining text within the polygon in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining the text.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – using a non transitory computer readable medium storing software to perform the steps and performing OCR. The medium in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic medium and a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further OCR is a well known computer process of recognizing characters recited at a high level of generality. This merely link the abstract idea to the general field of OCR. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and computer readable medium to perform steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. OCR is a well known computer process of recognizing characters recited at a high level of generality. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and well known OCR cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible
Re claim 9 The limitation of extract text features from the text within the polygon utilizing an information extraction model adapted to a newspaper domain from a free text domain; and predict, from the text features, name parts for entity names within the text of the polygon., is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, extract and predict in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing extraction and prediction.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 10 The limitation of generate, using an article locality model based on the text within the polygon, a locality prediction indicating whether the article is a local article or a non-local article., is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generate in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the generation.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 11 The limitation of generating, utilizing a column prediction model, a plurality of column predictions for the newspaper image; determining, from the plurality of column predictions, text columns within the newspaper image according to densities of column predictions at respective locations; a., is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating determining and aligning in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the generation of prediction performing the determination.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 12 The limitation of generate the polygon by generating a rectangular polygon enclosing one or more text columns within the newspaper image including text of the article, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally generating the polygon.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 13 The limitation of extract visual features from pixels of the newspaper image enclosed by the polygon; and classify the article into an article type based on the visual features., is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, extract and classify in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the extraction and classification.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 14 The limitation of generate the polygon defining the boundaries of the article by utilizing the column prediction model repurposed from an architectural building detection model., is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally generating polygon boundaries of the polygon from a mentally repurposed mental model.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 15
The limitation of receive a newspaper image depicting digitized newspaper content, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the context of this claim encompasses the user looking at the image and receiving it.
The limitation of detect an article within the digitized newspaper content of the newspaper image utilizing an article prediction model by detecting text columns of the newspaper image using a column prediction model, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, detecting in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the detection.
The limitation of generate, utilizing the article prediction model, a polygon defining boundaries of the article within the newspaper image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating a polygon in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally thinking of the polygon.
The limitation of determine text within the polygon, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determining text within the polygon in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining the text.
The limitation of determining, according to features extracted from pixels of the newspaper image, boundary box coordinates of the polygon defining the boundaries of the article, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determining boundary box coordinates encompasses mentally determining the coordinates.
The limitation of generating, aligning the article within the text columns by adjusting one or more vertices of the boundary box coordinates to align the polygon with the text columns, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, aligning in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally aligning the vertices of the bounding box.
The limitation of generating, utilizing the article prediction model, a confidence score for the boundary box coordinates of the polygon, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating a confidence score in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally generating the confidence score.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – using a non transitory computer readable medium storing instruction and a processor to perform the steps and performing OCR. The medium in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic medium and a generic processor performing a generic computer function o) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further OCR is a well known computer process of recognizing characters recited at a high level of generality. This merely link the abstract idea to the general field of OCR. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and computer readable medium to perform steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. OCR is a well known computer process of recognizing characters recited at a high level of generality. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and well known OCR cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible
Re claim 16 The limitation of extract text features from the text within the polygon utilizing an information extraction model adapted to a newspaper domain from a free text domain; and predict, from the text features, name parts for entity names within the text of the polygon., is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, extract and predict in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing extraction and prediction.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 17 The limitation of generate, using an article locality model based on the text within the polygon, a locality prediction indicating whether the article is a local article or a non-local article., is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generate in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the generation.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 18 The limitation of generating, utilizing a column prediction model, a plurality of column predictions for the newspaper image; determining, from the plurality of column predictions, text columns within the newspaper image according to densities of column predictions at respective locations;, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating determining and aligning in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the generation of prediction performing the determination.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 19 The limitation of generate the polygon by generating a rectangular polygon enclosing one or more text columns within the newspaper image including text of the article, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally generating the polygon.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 20 The limitation of extract visual features from pixels of the newspaper image enclosed by the polygon the visual features including luminosity values; and classify the article into an article topic based on the visual features., is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, extract and classify in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the extraction by mentally evaluating luminosity and classification.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN T MOTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1237. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/SEAN T MOTSINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights