DETAILED ACTION
This action is made FINAL in response to the amendments filed on 8/20/2026.
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, 3 – 16, and 18 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One
The claims are directed to a method (claims 1 and 3 - 15) and one or more non-transitory computer readable media (claims 16 and 18 - 22). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
As to claims 1,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
generating, from an input, an inference that contains a plurality of probabilities respectively for a plurality of classes that contains a majority class, a minority class, and a third class, wherein the plurality of probabilities contains a higher probability for the majority class that is higher than a lower probability for the minority class and b) a third probability for the third class;
For example, a human mentally assigns a higher likelihood to a first class over a second class based on a conclusion from observations
classifying, in response to a first threshold exceeding the higher probability and a second threshold exceeding the third probability, the input as the minority class;
For example, a human can mentally classify all the higher probabilities that are above a threshold into a single class.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the method is performed by one or more computers.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the performing process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim further recites one or more computers which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the method is performed by one or more computers.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the performing process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim further recites one or more computers which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 3,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
detecting the first threshold exceeds the higher probability in parallel with detecting the second threshold exceeds the third probability.
For example, a human can evaluate multiple possibilities at once.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 4,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
selecting the first threshold and the second threshold based on a multi-objective optimization.
For example, a human can choose the threshold based on past evaluations.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 5,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
generating based on the machine learning model, without retraining the machine learning model, a first validation score based on the first threshold and a second validation score based on the second threshold;
For example, a human can generate a ranking score based on the value of the thresholds.
selecting the first threshold based on the first validation score and the second threshold based on the second validation score.
For example, a human can choose the threshold value based on the highest ranked score.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
training a machine learning model
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
training a machine learning model
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 6,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
selecting the second threshold based on the first threshold.
For example, a human can choose the threshold based on past evaluations of the first threshold.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 7,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
selecting a third threshold based on a respective probability threshold of each class of multiple classes.
For example, a human can choose the threshold based on past evaluations.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 8,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
selecting the first threshold based on validation score of a machine learning model.
For example, a human can choose the threshold based on past scores.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 9,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
supervised generation of the validation score of the machine learning model
For example, a human can choose the threshold based on past scores.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 10,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
selecting the threshold based on a one-dimensional search
For example, a human can choose the threshold based on a focus on a single variable or parameter.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 10,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the one-dimensional search is uniform or not greedy
For example, a human can choose the threshold based on a focus on a single variable or parameter.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 11,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the one-dimensional search is uniform or not greedy
For example, a human can choose the threshold based on a focus on a single variable or parameter.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 12,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
said plurality of classes contains a first plurality of classes and a second plurality of classes that is disjoint from the first plurality of classes;
the method further comprises assigning a distinct respective threshold to each class in the first plurality of classes;
the method does not comprise assigning a threshold to a class in the second plurality of classes.
For example, a human can choose the threshold for each and every sperate class.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 13,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
selecting the first plurality of classes based on a ranking of respective frequencies of said plurality of classes.
For example, a human can choose a class based on the ranking of frequencies.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 14,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
said generating the inference that contains the plurality of probabilities is performed by the machine learning model.
For example, a human has been determining probabilities before computers where ever invented.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
the method further comprises unsupervised training a machine learning model;
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the method further comprises unsupervised training a machine learning model;
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 15,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
said input is a first input;
the method further comprises by data parallelism, detecting that the first threshold exceeds a respective probability of the first class for each of the first input and a second input.
For example, a human can evaluate multiple possibilities at once.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
Claim 16 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The claim further recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, one or more processors, and one or more computers which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 18 has similar limitations as claim 10. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 19 has similar limitations as claim 12. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 20 has similar limitations as claim 15. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
As to claim 21,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the instructions further cause detecting the first threshold exceeds the higher probability in parallel with detecting the second threshold exceeds the third probability.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the performing process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the instructions further cause detecting the first threshold exceeds the higher probability in parallel with detecting the second threshold exceeds the third probability.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the performing process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 22,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the instructions further cause selecting the second threshold based on the first threshold.
For example, a human mentally select an appropriate threshold.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
The newly added amendments overcome the Claim Objections and the Claim Objections has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The newly added amendments overcome the 103 Rejection and the 103 Rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The 101 Rejection still has not been overcome. The claims are abstract and the steps in the claims can be completed with a mental process and/or generic computer components. Additionally, the steps in the claims do not describe an improvement of technology in any way.
The applicant argues:
Claim 1 in its present form recites "majority…minority" per the specification (section 1.2 Class Frequency, Class Imbalance, And Overfitting) that teaches "class imbalance distorts (i.e.decreases accuracy) the state of the art overfits to majority class(s)". Claim 2 is merged into Claim 1 in its present form that recites "a second threshold" that is unconventional. Multi-threshold classification is innovative.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s position, as the arguments presented rely on limitations that are neither explicitly recited in the claims nor reasonably inferred from them. At no point in the pending claims does the applicant assert, describe, or even suggest the limitation of “"class imbalance distorts (i.e.decreases accuracy) the state of the art overfits to majority class(s).” Rather, the applicant appears to have introduced this language as part of the argument, but such a limitation cannot be read into the claims when it is not supported by the actual claim language. Without clear support in the claim language the examiner cannot give weight to arguments premised on these alleged limitations.
The claimed limitations are simply mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Humans have been classifying data, calculating probabilities, and comparing thresholds before computers were ever invented.
The applicant argues:
Claim 1 in its present form has step "classifying the input as the minority class". The specification (section 1.2 Class Frequency, Class Imbalance, And Overfitting) teaches "With class imbalance, state of the art training maximizes accuracy by maximizing true positives of the majority class(s). That is accompanied by an increase in false positives of the majority class(s) that means that minority class(s) remain unrecognizable (i.e. false negatives). Thus, the state of the art overfits to majority class(s) A consequence is that the state of the art has difficulty detecting minority class(s). In many applications, such as anomaly detection, minority class(s) are the sole or primary purpose of the application, for which state of the art classification may be more or less unsuitable." Here, "minority class(s) remain unrecognizable (i.e. false negatives). Thus, the state of the art overfits to majority class(s)" is a technology problem and "unrecognizable unsuitable" is a technology failure.
Claim 1 in its present form has step "classifying, in response to a first threshold exceeding the higher probability and a second threshold exceeding the third probability, the input as the minority class". Here, the claimed "in response to as second threshold as the minority class" is unconventionally accurate detection of "the minority class" due to unconventional avoidance of section 1.2's taught "minority class false negatives". The following sections of MPEP 2106 cite the following court cases in praise of increased accuracy as eligible subject
matter.
MPEP 2106.05(a)(II): "McRO court problem of producing accurate".
MPEP 2106.05(a)(II): " improves the accuracy Trading Techs. Int' 1, Inc. V. CQG, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)".
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1): "Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2017) more accurately".
Claim 1 in its present form unconventionally increases accuracy of internal operation of the claimed classification computer, which would not be characterized as "mere instructions" and "apply it". The human mind cannot increase accuracy of internal operation of a computer. Claim 1 in its present form would not be characterized as "in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper".
ALL CLAIMS ARE DIRECTED TO ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER
As discussed above, independent Claims 1 and 16 unconventionally increase accuracy of internal operation of the claimed classification computer. MPEP 2106.04(d) summarizes, "in a growing body of decisions, the Federal Circuit has distinguished claims that improve the functioning of a computer Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016)". Therefore, the claims are directed to eligible subject matter.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s position, as the arguments presented rely on limitations that are neither explicitly recited in the claims nor reasonably inferred from them. At no point in the pending claims does the applicant assert, describe, or even suggest the limitations of:
With class imbalance, state of the art training maximizes accuracy by maximizing true positives of the majority class(s). That is accompanied by an increase in false positives of the majority class(s) that means that minority class(s) remain unrecognizable (i.e. false negatives). Thus, the state of the art overfits to majority class(s)
Here, the claimed "in response to as second threshold as the minority class" is unconventionally accurate detection of "the minority class" due to unconventional avoidance of section 1.2's taught "minority class false negatives
Claim 1 in its present form unconventionally increases accuracy of internal operation of the claimed classification computer, which would not be characterized as "mere instructions" and "apply it". The human mind cannot increase accuracy of internal operation of a computer.
Rather, the applicant appears to have introduced this language as part of the argument, but such a limitation cannot be read into the claims when it is not supported by the actual claim language. Without clear support in the claim language the examiner cannot give weight to arguments premised on these alleged limitations.
The applicant mentions:
MPEP 2106.05(a)(II): "McRO court problem of producing accurate".
MPEP 2106.05(a)(II): " improves the accuracy Trading Techs. Int' 1, Inc. V. CQG, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)".
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1): "Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2017) more accurately".
MPEP 2106.04(d): “Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp”
as examples but the Applicant does not explain how the cited examples are relevant to the presently claimed invention. The examples are not tied to the claimed features, nor are there any comparison provided demonstrating how it supports patent eligibility. It is unclear why the Applicant relies on these examples. The applicants arguments improperly rely on the complexity of the above examples and the specification rather than the actual claims that were written.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
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, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights