DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an amendment to application 18/414136, filed on 2/25/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 19, and 20 have been amended to recite “analyze the machine learning task to decompose the machine learning task into one or more functions for performing the machine learning task.” The new limitation is not supported by the originally filed specification or the original claims. Applicant cites paragraphs 81-93 of the Specification as support for the new limitation. (Remarks filed 2/23/2026, pg. 10-11). However, nowhere in the Specification is the word “decompose” recited, and nowhere in those cited paragraphs is the new limitation mentioned or described. Accordingly, the new limitation causes claims 1, 19, 20 (and dependent claims 2-18) to fail to comply with the written description requirement. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claims will be examined as if the word “determine” was not replaced with “decompose the machine learning task into.” Note that the amendment to the subsequent limitation (i.e. “based on the one or more functions”) is not subject to this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 13-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPUB 2021/0383259, hereinafter “Dmitriev.”
Regarding claim 1, Dmitriev anticipates “An apparatus, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory (see, e.g., Dmitriev, para. 68, 84) and configured to cause the apparatus to:
receive a request to perform a machine learning task, the request comprising a dataset related to the machine learning task; (see, e.g., Dmitriev; para. 32; “databases used by a workflow management system 130”; para. 33; “a request for the workflow management system 130 to generate a new workflow based on context attributes or other preferences specified by the user.”)
analyze the machine learning task to determine one or more functions for performing the machine learning task; (see, e.g., Dmitriev; para. 35; “The candidate workflow selection module 310 identifies candidate workflows that are similar to a target workflow.”)
generate, based on the one or more functions, a workflow for the one or more functions of the machine learning task, the workflow comprising an order for performing the one or more functions for the machine learning task using one or more machine learning models and the dataset; (see, e.g., Dmitriev; para. 64; “The workflow management system 130 identifies 1020 a plurality of candidate changes to the target workflow. The plurality of candidate changes are historical changes that were previously made to candidate workflows that are similar to the target workflow.”; “The workflow management system 130 applies 1060 the selected candidate change to the target workflow.”)
execute the generated workflow; (see, e.g., Dmitriev; para. 57; “The testing module 345 determines performance of both versions of the target workflow by using both version of the target workflow”) and
provide results of the executed workflow.” (see, e.g., Dmitriev; para. 57; “evaluating whether the selected change 630 resulted in performance improvement.”).
Regarding claim 13, Dmitriev anticipates “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the machine learning task is associated with at least one user, at least one team, at least one organization, or a combination thereof.” (see, e.g., Dmitriev; para. 29).
Regarding claim 14, Dmitriev anticipates “The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the machine learning task is shareable across a plurality of users, teams, organizations, or a combination thereof.” (see, e.g., Dmitriev; para. 26).
Regarding claim 18, Dmitriev anticipates “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to receive the request to perform the machine learning task via a shared application programming interface (API).” (see, e.g., Dmitriev; para. 28).
Regarding claims 19-20, the instant claims are equivalents of claim 1, differing only by statutory class. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 19 and to claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dmitriev and USPGPUB 2018/0053328, hereinafter “Simonovic.”
Regarding claim 2, Dmitriev discloses “The apparatus of claim 1,” but does not appear to disclose the further limitation “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to determine one or more requirements for performing the one or more functions of the workflow.” However, Simonovic discloses (at para. 51-52) determining requirements for performing functions of a workflow. Simonovic and Dmitriev are directed toward workflow management and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the workflow requirement determination of Simonovic with the workflow generation of Dmitriev, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear a predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to improve computational workflow execution. (Simonovic, para. 5). Accordingly the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Dmitriev and Simonovic.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Dmitriev and Simonovic renders obvious “The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to: identify one or more nodes for performing the one or more functions of the workflow based on the one or more requirements; (see, e.g., Simonovic, para. 13) and transmit the workflow to the identified one or more nodes for performing the one or more functions of the workflow.” (see, e.g., Simonovic, para. 65). On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the workflow requirement determination of Simonovic with the workflow generation of Dmitriev, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear a predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to improve computational workflow execution. (Simonovic, para. 5). Accordingly the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Dmitriev and Simonovic.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Dmitriev and Simonovic renders obvious “The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to containerize at least a portion of the one or more functions of the workflow prior to transmitting the workflow to the one or more nodes, the containerized workflow comprising a command script comprising instructions for performing the one or more functions of the workflow.” (see, e.g., Simonovic, para. 64). On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the workflow requirement determination of Simonovic with the workflow generation of Dmitriev, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear a predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to improve computational workflow execution. (Simonovic, para. 5). Accordingly the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Dmitriev and Simonovic.
Regarding claim 5, Dmitriev discloses “The apparatus of claim 1,” but does not appear to disclose the further limitations “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to store the dataset, the results, model inputs, model outputs, or a combination thereof, in dedicated storage associated with the workflow.” However, Simonovic discloses (at para. 64) storing the dataset, results, model inputs and outputs, or a combination thereof. Simonovic and Dmitriev are directed toward workflow management and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the workflow requirement determination of Simonovic with the workflow generation of Dmitriev, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear a predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to improve computational workflow execution. (Simonovic, para. 5). Accordingly the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Dmitriev and Simonovic.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dmitriev, Simonovic, and USPGPUB 2011/0093436, hereinafter “Zha.”
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Dmitriev and Simonovic renders obvious “The apparatus of claim 5,” but does not appear to disclose the further limitations “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to read and write data to the dedicated storage during execution of the workflow.” However, Zha discloses (at para. 99, 103) reading and writing data to dedicated storage during execution of a workflow. Dmitriev, Simonovic, and Zha are directed toward workflow management and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the workflow requirement determination of Simonovic and the workflow generation of Dmitriev with the dedicated storage read/write of Zha, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear a predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to improve data management during workflow executions. (Zha, para. 1, 5). Accordingly the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Dmitriev, Simonovic, and Zha.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Dmitriev and Simonovic renders obvious “The apparatus of claim 5,” but does not appear to disclose the further limitations “wherein the dedicated storage associated with the workflow comprises a shared address space that is available to users who are members of a same organization.” However, Zha discloses (at para. 100-103) reading and writing data to a shared address space available to users within an organization. Dmitriev, Simonovic, and Zha are directed toward workflow management and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the workflow requirement determination of Simonovic and the workflow generation of Dmitriev with the shared address space of Zha, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear a predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to improve data management during workflow executions. (Zha, para. 1, 5). Accordingly the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Dmitriev, Simonovic, and Zha.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dmitriev and Abouelhoda et al., “Towards Scalable and Cost-aware Bioinformatics Workflow Execution in the Cloud - Recent Advances to the Tavaxy Workflow System,” ResearchGate, 2013, hereinafter “Abouelhoda.”
Regarding claim 8, Dmitriev discloses “The apparatus of claim 1,” but does not appear to disclose the further limitations “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to determine a cost for executing the workflow prior to executing the workflow.” However, Abouelhoda discloses determining a cost for executing a workflow before executing the workflow. (Abouelhoda, pg. 269; “it is not difficult to solve the optimization problem numerically or heuristically before workflow submission. In both cases, this requires developing appropriate execution time and cost functions, considering different resource types available and their prices.”). Dmitriev and Abouelhoda are directed toward workflow analysis and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the workflow cost determination of Abouelhoda and the workflow generation of Dmitriev, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear a predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to minimize the cost of workflow execution. (Abouelhoda, pg. 255, Abstract). Accordingly the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Dmitriev and Abouelhoda.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Dmitriev and Abouelhoda renders obvious “The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to present a prompt for approval to proceed with execution of the workflow in response to the determined cost satisfying a threshold cost.” (see, e.g., Abouelhoda, pg. 269, “However, we note that in the spot pricing case prices change dynamically which means that the user may change the resource allocation dynamically. For example, as the prices drop or as the threshold to start spot instances is exceeded, the user can adaptively increase the number of cluster nodes, which effectively expanding R to reduce the expected time further without violating the budget constraints. If the prices move up again, the user can de-allocated the extra machines used.”). On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the workflow cost threshold determination of Abouelhoda and the workflow generation of Dmitriev, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear a predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to minimize the cost of workflow execution. (Abouelhoda, pg. 255, Abstract). Accordingly the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Dmitriev and Abouelhoda.
Regarding claim 10, Dmitriev discloses “The apparatus of claim 1,” but does not appear to disclose the further limitations “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to generate one or more visualizations associated with the workflow.” However, Abouelhoda discloses generating one or more visualizations associated with a workflow. (Abouelhoda, pg. 258; “Scientific workflow systems are software tools that simplify the development and execution of large-scale and distributed scientific data processing and analysis applications. These systems typically provide a visual interface that allows users to develop their data processing tasks interactively in the form of a directed acyclic graph.”). Dmitriev and Abouelhoda are directed toward workflow analysis and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the workflow visualization of Abouelhoda and the workflow generation of Dmitriev, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear a predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to improve workflow generation. (Abouelhoda, pg. 255, Abstract). Accordingly the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Dmitriev and Abouelhoda.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dmitriev and 2006/0156157, hereinafter “Haselden.”
Regarding claim 11, Dmitriev discloses “The apparatus of claim 1,” but does not appear to disclose the further limitations “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to generate one or more checkpoints during execution of the workflow.” However, Haselden teaches generating checkpoints during workflow execution. (Haselden, para. 11; “a workflow engine can be employed to execute workflow packages and generate checkpoint components associated therewith.”). Dmitriev and Haselden are directed toward workflow analysis and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the workflow checkpointing of Haselden and the workflow generation of Dmitriev, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear a predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to facilitate recovery from system failure. (Haselden, para. 5). Accordingly the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Dmitriev and Haselden.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Dmitriev and Haselden renders obvious “The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to restart the workflow at a checkpoint of the one or more checkpoints in response to execution of the workflow being interrupted.” (See, e.g., Haselden, para. 47). On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the workflow checkpointing of Haselden and the workflow generation of Dmitriev, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear a predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to facilitate recovery from system failure. (Haselden, para. 5). Accordingly the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Dmitriev and Haselden.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dmitriev and Shih et al., “Predicting Glass Properties by Using Physics- and Chemistry-Informed Machine Learning Models,” 2022, hereinafter “Shih.”
Regarding claim 15, Dmitriev discloses “The apparatus of claim 1,” but does not appear to disclose the further limitations “wherein the machine learning task comprises a scientific machine learning task utilizing one or more scientific machine learning models.” However, Shih discloses a scientific machine learning task utilizing scientific models. (Shih, pg. 7, sec. 2.2; “develop physics- and chemistry-informed ML models.”). Shih and Dmitriev are directed toward machine learning and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the scientific machine learning of Shih and the workflow generation of Dmitriev, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear a predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to improve the performance of scientific machine learning tasks. Accordingly the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Dmitriev and Shih.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Dmitriev and Shih renders obvious “The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the scientific machine learning task comprises a chemistry-related machine learning task and wherein the one or more scientific machine learning models comprises one or more chemistry foundation machine learning models.” (see, e.g., Shih, pg. 7, sec. 2.2; “develop physics- and chemistry-informed ML models.”). On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the scientific machine learning of Shih and the workflow generation of Dmitriev, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear a predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to improve the performance of scientific machine learning tasks. Accordingly the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Dmitriev and Shih.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dmitriev and Kooi et al., “Large scale deep learning for computer aided detection of mammographic lesions,” 2017, hereinafter “Kooi.”
Regarding claim 17, Dmitriev discloses “The apparatus of claim 1,” but does not appear to disclose the further limitations “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to add one or more new functions to a core set of functions used to perform machine learning tasks.” However, Kooi discloses adding new functions to a core set of functions used to perform machine learning tasks. (Kooi, pg. 310; “To add features, we have used a second classification stage. This has the advantage it is easy to evaluate which features add information, without retraining a network and re-optimizing the parameters, which can take several weeks to do properly. On top of this, the learned feature representation of the CNN is the same in all situations, rendering comparison more reliable.”). Shih and Kooi are directed toward machine learning and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the function addition of Kooi with the workflow generation of Dmitriev, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear a predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to improve the performance of machine learning tasks. Accordingly the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Dmitriev and Kooi.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in traversal of the standing claim rejections have been carefully reviewed but are not found to be persuasive. The arguments will be addressed in the order that they were presented.
At pg. 10-12 of the Remarks filed 2/25/2026, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
191
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
667
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
165
697
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
410
683
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The new “decompose” language is rejected for failing to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 122(a). In the interest of compact prosecution, the claims were examined as set forth in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, i.e., without the new “decompose” language. The cited portions of Dmitriev disclose “a request for the workflow management system 130 to generate a new workflow based on context attributes or other preferences specified by the user” in conjunction with a machine learning task. (para. 33). Dmitriev then generates a new workflow based on one or more functions performed by that machine learning task (para. 35), and then executes the new workflow and provides results (para. 57). Accordingly, the independent claims remain anticipated by Dmitriev.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds 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 RYAN D COYER whose telephone number is (571) 270-5306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12pm-10pm Eastern Time. 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, Wei Mui, can be reached on 571-272-3708. 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.
/Ryan D. Coyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights