DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is response to the amendments filed on 04/08/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 5, 13 to include new/old limitations in a form not previously presented necessitating new search and considerations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
“maintain consistency of spatial partition execution across the simulated space” in claim 1.
Specification describes simulation manager transmits indications of accepted partition manipulations to the plurality of workers (published application
fig. 11 [0064] ), which indicates information exchange between workers and manager and further describes worker maintain mapping between the prior state and the subsequent state of the spatial partitions involved in the manipulation for properly routing incoming data to appropriate partitions ([0064]). However, Specification don’t describe or suggest maintaining consistency of spatial partition execution across the simulated space. Applicant is requested to provide support for the above limitations.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 1 recites “maintain consistency of spatial partition execution across the simulated space”. It is unclear metric for the consistency of spatial partition execution is the state of partitions or data processed by the partitions or number of partitions before/after splitting/merging.
Claims 5 and 13 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational. Remaining dependent claims 2-4, 6-12 and 14-20 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more or integrating into practical application.
Claims 1-20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Examples of abstract ideas include at least Mathematical concepts, Mental process and Certain Methods of organizing human activity. Independent claim 1 is directed to “partitioning and manipulating simulated space into spatial partitions based on given partition information, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, at a high level of generality.
Step 1
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1 recites a system comprising memory/processors, which falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 5 recites a method, which falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 13 recites non-transitory computer-readable storage media, which falls within “machine/manufacture” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, the analysis determines whether the claims recite a judicial exception and fail to integrate the exception into practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Re. 54-55. If both elements are satisfied, the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test, See id.
Step 2A Prong One
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Claim
i
1. A computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories having stored therein instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
generic computing
ii
receiving, by a first worker of a plurality of workers, spatial partition data saturation information relating to one or more spatial partitions assigned to one or more applications allocated to the first worker,
information gathering
iii
wherein the plurality of workers execute in association with a simulated space that is divided into a plurality of spatial
partitions,
mental process abstract idea
iv
wherein each spatial partition of the plurality of spatial
partitions is assigned to a corresponding application that performs acts related to state associated with the spatial
partition, and
mental process abstract idea
v
wherein at least one spatial partition of the plurality of spatial partitions has a state dependency on at least one other spatial partition of the plurality of spatial partitions;
mental process abstract idea
vi
performing, by the first worker, based at least in part on the spatial partition data saturation information, a first partition manipulation,
mental process abstract idea
vii
the first partition manipulation including splitting of a parent spatial partition of the one or more spatial partitions into child spatial partitions or merging the child spatial partitions into the parent spatial partition; and
mental process abstract idea
viii
transmitting, by the first worker, to a simulation manger configured to coordinate partition ownership across the plurality of workers, a request for acceptance of the first partition manipulation,
information transmission
ix.
wherein the simulation manager determines whether to accept the first partition manipulation based at least in part on partition allocation constraints, and
mental process abstract idea
x.
wherein the simulation manager transmits indications of accepted partition manipulations to the plurality of workers to maintain consistency of spatial partition execution across the simulated space.
information transmission
The overall process described by steps [iii]-[vii] and [ix] describes “concepts performed in the human mind” or “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.”
Thus steps [iii]-[vii] and [ix] recite the abstract concept of [m]ental processes.” For example, step [iii] recites “ wherein the plurality of workers execute in association with a simulated space that is divided into a plurality of spatial partitions”. Dividing space into multiple partitions, can be performed by human mind alone and or with the help of pen and paper. Claim 1 step [iv] recites “wherein each spatial partition of the plurality of spatial partitions is assigned to a corresponding application that performs acts related to state associated with the spatial partition”, which is directed to assigning application to the partitions based on the related state, and is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind. Claim 1 step [v] recites “wherein at least one spatial partition of the plurality of spatial partitions has a state dependency on at least one other spatial partition of the plurality of spatial partitions;”, which is describes dependency of one partition on other and is directed to mapping partitions based on the dependency and is also is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind. Claim 1 step [vi] recites “performing, by the first worker, based at least in part on the spatial partition data saturation information, a first partition manipulation”, which is directed to manipulating partition based on given partition data information, and is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind. Claim 1 step [vii] recites “the first partition manipulation including splitting of a parent spatial partition of the one or more spatial partitions into child spatial partitions or merging the child spatial partitions into the parent spatial partition”, which is directed to splitting and merging of partitions and can be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper. Claim 1 step [ix] recites “wherein the simulation manager determines whether to accept the first partition manipulation based at least in part on partition allocation constraints”, which is a combination of one or more of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and can be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper. Therefore, steps [iii]-[vii] and [ix] resembles the idea of performing observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion according to the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim elements and can be performed by human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception. For these same reasons, and based on similar analysis, claims 5 and 13 also recites judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Because claims 1, 5 and 13 recite a judicial exception, analysis determines if the claims recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application.
In addition to the limitations of claim 1 discussed above that recite the abstract concepts, claim 1 also recites additional steps [i]-[ii], and [viii]-[x]. claim 1 in step [i] recites “a computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories having stored therein instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations”, which is directed to generic computing. these generic computing components e.g. memories, processors, are and not considered an improvement in the functioning of a computer or technology or technical field. see MPEP § 2106.04(d). Claim 1 in step [ii] recites “receiving, by a first worker of a plurality of workers, spatial partition data saturation information relating to one or more spatial partitions assigned to one or more applications allocated to the first worker”, which is directed to information gathering. Information gathering is considered insignificant extra solution activity and don’t provide any improvement in the functioning of a computer technology or technical field. Therefore, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception may not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) I. § 2106.05(g). Claim 1 steps [viii] and [x] is directed to information transmission between the manager and worker. Transmitting information between two entity is commonly performed and may not provide improvement to technology and/or technical field to integrate the abstract idea into the practical application. Step [x] further indicate the information is transmitted to maintain consistency, but lacks recitation of actually achieving consistency. The Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations recited in claim 1 steps [i]-[ii] and [viii]-[x] from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, these additional claim elements recited in claim 1, under broadest reasonable interpretation, either alone or in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception. For these same reasons and based on similar analysis as above, claims 5 and 13 also recites judicial exception.
Step 2B
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)).
Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Because claims 1, 5 and 13 are directed to judicial exception, analysis must determine, according to Alice, whether these claims recite an element, or combination of elements that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed to significantly more than a judicial exception.
The Memorandum, Section III (B) (footnote 36) states:
In accordance with existing guidance, an Examiner’s conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must be supported with a factual determination. For more information concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, convention activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum.
The Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III(A)(1) states:
A Specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, on in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 §U.S.C. 112(a). A finding that an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element.
Regarding the processors, memories as recited in claim 1 step [i], the conventional or generalized function terms by which the computer components are described reasonably indicate that Specification discloses conventional component, and describes the component in a manner that indicates that these elements are sufficient well-known and that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Further, the Specification does not provide additional details that would distinguish the recited components from generic implementation in the combination. Additional claim elements recited in step [ii] is directed to information gathering, according to the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim elements and is considered well-understood, routine and conventional. See, Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1350. Additional claim elements recited in steps [viii] and [x] is directed to information transmission, which is also considered well-understood, routine and conventional, according to the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim elements. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355(Fed. Cir 2014). These limitations either alone or in combination simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Further, the Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations as recited in the claim from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. As such, it has been recognized by court that receiving, processing, and storing data as well as receiving or transmitting data over a network are a well-understood, routine and conventional activities. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic computer components, such as interface, “network”, and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); see also TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d 607; Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1350. There is no indication that the recited claim elements override the conventional use of known features or involve an unconventional arrangement or combination of elements such that the particular combination of generic technology results in anything beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and output. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”) See also Customedia Techs. LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1366(Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he invocation of ‘already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance…amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.”)(quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898F3.d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); and (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network -- with no further specification -- is not even arguably inventive.”).
Thus, Claim1 is directed to the mental process abstract idea without additional claim elements that would cause integration into practical application and /or don’t amount to significantly more. Based on similar analysis as above, independent claims 5 and 13 recite claim elements that are directed to abstract idea without reciting additional claim elements, that individually or in combination, are either generic computing methods/components or insignificant pre/post solution activity and neither integrate into practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Claim 2 recites “generating partition metadata associated with the first partition manipulation, wherein the partition metadata indicates at least one of an identifier of a highest-level ancestor partition, an identifier of the parent spatial partition, a partition depth, or a child spatial partition quantity”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Therefore, these limitations are directed to mental process abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the merging of the child spatial partitions is based at least in part on determinations that the child spatial partitions are all assigned to a same application of the one or more applications and that all of the child spatial partitions are available for merging”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Therefore, these limitations are directed to mental process abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites “wherein parent spatial partition is split based at least in part on a determination that the parent spatial partition has at or above a threshold of entities”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Therefore, these limitations are directed to mental process abstract idea.
Based on similar analysis as above, dependent claims 6-12 and 14-20 recite claim elements that are either abstract idea or additional claim elements, that individually or in combination, are either generic computing methods/components or insignificant pre / post solution activity and neither integrate into practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to judicial exception without integrating into practical application or significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
The previous objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
The previous objections to drawings have been withdrawn.
The previous objections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn. However, some new objections are made in reference to the amended claims.
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In Applicant’s response filed on 04/08/2026, Applicant argues the following:
Independent claims as originally presented are not directed to an abstract idea.
Claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and recited significantly more.
Examiner has thoroughly considered Applicant’s arguments, but respectfully, find them unpersuasive for at least the following reasons:
With respect to point a.) Examiner respectfully disagree. As identified above under 35 USC 101 objection, claim elements are directed to abstract idea. Applicant argues that the merging and splitting of partitions is not merely a conceptual decision to split or merge. Examiner would like to point out that the concepts of merging and splitting is identified as mental process abstract idea. Applicant further adds that claim rather requires first worker, among plurality of workers executing applications associated with spatial partitions, perform partition manipulation based on spatial partition data saturation information. As far as multiple worker executing respective application is concerned, these are not considered abstract idea, but these are technological environment and elements that are known to one of ordinary skill in the art as common, routine and well understood. Applicant further indicates transmission of information e.g. request for acceptance and/or acceptance information, which is merely information transmission and are considered insignificant extra solution activity, which is well-understood, routine and conventional, as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art. The idea of merging and splitting is considered abstract idea of mental process and on conceptual level these act can be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper. Applicant further argues that claimed requirement that partition manipulation is conditioned on acceptance signaling and dissemination to multiple workers to control execution of distributed simulation. Examiner respectfully indicates that partition manipulation is based on the saturation information and not based on acceptance signaling. Acceptance signaling is transmitted after the partition and is merely act as a notification, which is considered post-solution insignificant activity. Similarly, transmission of coordinate partition ownership across the plurality of workers is merely distributing the assignment information, and considered insignificant extra solution activity. Therefore, the transmission of information is not considered abstract idea, and also not significant enough to make the abstract idea patent eligible. Applying the abstract idea to a computing infrastructure also do not make the claim patent eligible.
Applicant further argues that the claim is directed to a concrete solution to a technical problem. Examiner respectfully indicate that claim is directed to abstract idea and claim directed to abstract idea, even inventive, do not make the claim patent eligible.
With respect to point b.) Applicant argues that the claim integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Applicant indicates that the claim governs how and when partition structure changes are allowed to affect distributed execution and prevent uncontrolled partition changes that would otherwise disrupt partition ownership and consistency. Examiner respectfully indicate that only claim 1 and not other independent claim recites “maintain consistency”. This argument is touching improvement in technology to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. However, claim doesn’t actually achieve consistency i.e. information is transmitted for the purpose of consistency, but there is no indication that received information is further processed in such a manner to achieve consistency. Examiner suggested further amending claim to realize consistency if supported in the specification to realize the improvement and integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Also, claim doesn’t specifically recite when the structure change take into effect and therefore argument is not based on the recited claim elements.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Interpreting the claims in light of the specification, and argument presented by the Applicant in the Remarks filed on 04/08/2026, Examiner finds the claimed invention is patentably distinct from the prior art of record. The prior art of record does not expressly teach or render obvious the invention as recited in amended independent claims.
Loodin Ek (US 2022/0343594 A1) teaches the receiving, by a first worker of a plurality of workers, spatial partition data information relating to one or more spatial partitions assigned to one or more applications allocated to the first worker, wherein the plurality of workers execute in association with a simulated space that is divided into a plurality of spatial partitions, wherein each spatial partition of the plurality of spatial partitions is assigned to a corresponding application that performs acts related to state associated with the spatial partition, and wherein at least one spatial partition of the plurality of spatial partitions has a state dependency on at least one other spatial partition of the plurality of spatial partitions; performing, by the first worker, based at least in part on the spatial partition data saturation information, a first partition manipulation, the first partition manipulation including splitting of a parent spatial partition of the one or more spatial partitions into child spatial partitions or merging the child spatial partitions into the parent spatial partition.
Segawa et al. (US 2007/0013701 A1) teaches transmitting, by the first worker, a request for acceptance of the first partition manipulation, transmits indications of accepted partition manipulations to the plurality of workers.
The combination of prior arts of record do not expressly teach or render obvious the limitations of “performing, by the first worker, based at least in part on the spatial partition data saturation information, a first partition manipulation including splitting a parent spatial partition into child spatial partitions or merging the child spatial partitions into the parent spatial partition; and a simulation manger configured to coordinate partition ownership across the plurality of workers, determining whether to accept the first partition manipulation based at least in part on partition allocation constraints, and transmits indications of accepted partition manipulations to the plurality of workers (to maintain consistency of spatial partition execution across the simulated space)”, when taken in the context of the claims as a whole, as recited in the independent claims 1, 5 and 13 were not disclosed in the prior arts of record.
Conclusion
Authorization for Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03)
“Recognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner’s Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boulkenafed et al. (US 2018/0096514 A1) teaches method for simulating a 3D scene with a set of computing resources running in parallel.
Cho et al. (US 2023/0360074 A1) teaches system of allocating and rewarding to user through virtual space allocation and partition on physical space.
Delaet et al. (US 2019/0227977 A1) teaches generating segmented notifications in a virtual space.
Horii et al. (US 2009/0199198 A1) teaches multimode server system, load distribution method, resource management server
Hormigo Cebolla et al. (US 2017/0182421 A1) teaches virtual world environment to simulate an actual live event in real time.
Watanabe et al. (US 2018/0074746 A1) teaches distributed storage system and control method including managing virtual partial area of the divided virtual storage area.
Yoshida et al. (US 2010/0146409 A1) teaches virtual space management system
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU ZAR GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00 - 17:00 Hrs.
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, Aimee Lee can be reached on 571-272-4169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights