DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one structure. Thus, the claim is to a product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1 recite(s):
A learning management system, comprising specialized computer hardware and software, comprising:
a first language selection tool, presented to a first user, configured to permit said first user to select a first human language, representing that said first user has fluency is said first human language;
a second language selection tool, presented to said first user, configured to permit said first user to select a second human language, representing that said first user seeks to develop skill in said second human language;
an A/V conversation software module, wherein said A/V conversation software module is configured to facilitate real-time learning of said second language by said first user through spoken conversations by enabling an A/V interaction between said first user and a second user, over a computer network;
and a speaking time tracking tool, configured to calculate:
a cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking during said A/V interaction;
a cumulative amount of time that said second user spends speaking during said A/V interaction; a total time of said A/V interaction;
a ratio of the cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction;
and a ratio of the cumulative amount of time that said second user spends speaking during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction; and
a GUI tool displaying a score of said first user, based, at least in part, on said ratio of the cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “specialized computer hardware and software”, “an A/V conversation software module”, “a GUI tool” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a teacher allowing two students to converse based on their desired language target and the second user’s ability; tracking the speaking time of the first and second users, calculating the ratio of the speaking time and displaying a score based on the ratio of the speaking time.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “specialized computer hardware and software”, “an A/V conversation software module”, “a GUI tool”.
The “specialized computer hardware and software”, “an A/V conversation software module” and “a GUI tool” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 12 examples of the off the shelf teleconferencing software, and paragraph 55 examples of generic computing devices such as laptop and smartphone).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-19 are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. These claims recite no additional limitations. For example, claim 2 is directed to the use of the computer network (a technological environment); claims 3-9 are directed to verifying the user’s skill level and determining whether or not to enable a/v interaction (an abstract idea); claims 10-13 are directed toward compensation of the users based on their scores (an abstract idea); claims 14-19 are directed toward determining scores and allowing further rules based on the ratio of speaking time (an abstract ideas). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hee KR 20190011540, in view of Nomoto JP 2010175684
Claim 1: The Hee reference provide a teaching of a learning management system, comprising specialized computer hardware and software (see page 2 abstract “online education network”, comprising:
a first language selection tool, presented to a first user, configured to permit said first user to select a first human language, representing that said first user has fluency is said first human language (see page 5 paragraph 4 selecting a target language that wishes to learn and the level of the user’s skill in a target language);
a second language selection tool, presented to said first user, configured to permit said first user to select a second human language, representing that said first user seeks to develop skill in said second human language (see page 6 paragraph 7 “the system may require a qualified user, or may be required to have attributes that are compatible with the goals of the first user, such as language proficiency “ and page 7 paragraph 1-2 presenting proposed matched between the first and second user based on the criteria selected and the acceptance of the match by the first and second user);
an A/V conversation software module, wherein said A/V conversation software module is configured to facilitate real-time learning of said second language by said first user through spoken conversations by enabling an A/V interaction between said first user and a second user, over a computer network (see page 3 paragraph 3 “The user interface may include text, video, and / or audio interfaces through which a pair of users may view and communicate with one another” ); and
The Hee reference is silent on the teaching of:
a speaking time tracking tool, configured to calculate:
a cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking during said A/V interaction;
a cumulative amount of time that said second user spends speaking during said A/V interaction;
a total time of said A/V interaction;
a ratio of the cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction; and
a ratio of the cumulative amount of time that said second user spends speaking during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction; and
a GUI tool displaying a score of said first user, based, at least in part, on said ratio of the cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction.
However, the Nomoto reference provides a teaching of
a speaking time tracking tool, configured to calculate:
a cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking during said A/V interaction (see page 4 first paragraph utterance to the end of utterance are calculated for first party);
a cumulative amount of time that said second user spends speaking during said A/V interaction (see page 4 paragraph 6th utterance to the end of utterance are calculated for second party);
a total time of said A/V interaction (see page 5 1st paragraph total interaction time is calculated);
a ratio of the cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction (see FIG. 5B a figure showing the ration of the first user speaking vs total interaction time) ; and
a ratio of the cumulative amount of time that said second user spends speaking during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction (see FIG. 5C a figure showing the ratio of the second user vs total interaction time); and
a GUI tool displaying a score of said first user, based, at least in part, on said ratio of the cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction (see page 7 paragraph 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hee reference with the feature of:
a speaking time tracking tool, configured to calculate:
a cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking during said A/V interaction;
a cumulative amount of time that said second user spends speaking during said A/V interaction;
a total time of said A/V interaction;
a ratio of the cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction; and
a ratio of the cumulative amount of time that said second user spends speaking during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction; and
a GUI tool displaying a score of said first user, based, at least in part, on said ratio of the cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to make said combination since it would allow a user to quickly analyze the quality of the interaction between the first and second user (see page 3 paragraph 1).
Claim 2: The Hee reference provides a teaching of wherein said computer network comprises the Internet (page 8 paragraph 6 “. The communication port 540 may be attached to a communication network such as the Internet”
Claim 9: The Hee reference is silent on the teaching of wherein said specialized computer hardware and software comprise a GUI tool displaying a score for said second user, based, at least in part on said proportion of the total time of said A/V interaction that said second user spends speaking during said A/V interaction.
However, the Nomoto reference provides a teaching of wherein said specialized computer hardware and software comprise a GUI tool displaying a score for said second user, based, at least in part on said proportion of the total time of said A/V interaction that said second user spends speaking during said A/V interaction (see page 7 paragraph 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hee reference with the feature of wherein said specialized computer hardware and software comprise a GUI tool displaying a score for said second user, based, at least in part on said proportion of the total time of said A/V interaction that said second user spends speaking during said A/V interaction, in order to provide an objective measurement of the user’s ability.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hee KR 20190011540 and in view of Nomoto JP 2010175684 and further in view of Ryo KR 101011773
Claim 3: The Hee reference is silent on the teaching of wherein said computer hardware and software comprise a language ability testing and verification module, configured to test and verify said first user’s skills with respect to said second language.
However, the Ryo reference provides a teaching of wherein said computer hardware and software comprise a language ability testing and verification module, configured to test and verify said first user’s skills with respect to said second language (see page 4 paragraph 3 “…objectively validate their learning ability levels if you want to use them. The level evaluation module 313 advances the test to evaluate the level of learning capability level is determined by testing the level of the user's learning ability. “).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hee reference with the feature of wherein said computer hardware and software comprise a language ability testing and verification module, configured to test and verify said first user’s skills with respect to said second language, as taught by the Ryo reference, in order to verify the user’s language ability (see page 2 paragraph 1).
Claim 4: The Hee reference is silent on the teaching of wherein said language ability testing and verification module is configured to test and verify said second user’s skills with respect to said second language.
However, the Ryo reference wherein said language ability testing and verification module is configured to test and verify said second user’s skills with respect to said second language (see page 4 paragraph 3 “…objectively validate their learning ability levels if you want to use them. The level evaluation module 313 advances the test to evaluate the level of learning capability level is determined by testing the level of the user's learning ability. “).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hee reference with the feature of wherein said language ability testing and verification module is configured to test and verify said second user’s skills with respect to said second language, as taught by the Ryo reference, in order to verify the user’s language ability (see page 2 paragraph 1).
Claim 5: The Hee reference is silent on the teaching of wherein said language ability testing and verification module is configured to test and verify said second user’s skills with respect to said first language.
However, the Ryo reference provides a teaching of wherein said language ability testing and verification module is configured to test and verify said second user’s skills with respect to said first language (see page 4 paragraph 3 “…objectively validate their learning ability levels if you want to use them. The level evaluation module 313 advances the test to evaluate the level of learning capability level is determined by testing the level of the user's learning ability.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hee reference with the feature of wherein said language ability testing and verification module is configured to test and verify said second user’s skills with respect to said first language, as taught by the Ryo reference,
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hee KR 20190011540 and in view of Nomoto JP 2010175684, in view of Ryo KR 101011773 and further in view of Yun KR 20090114192
Claim 6: The Hee reference is silent on the teaching of wherein said system facilitates real-time learning of said second language by said first user through spoken conversations by enabling an A/V interaction between said first user and said second user only if said first user is verified, by said language ability testing and verification module, to have a skill level in said second language meeting a particular criterion.
However, the Yun reference provides a teaching of wherein said system facilitates real-time learning of said second language by said first user through spoken conversations by enabling an A/V interaction between said first user and said second user only if said first user is verified, by said language ability testing and verification module, to have a skill level in said second language meeting a particular criterion (see page 5 third paragraph checking if the user’s proficiency level is sufficient prior to allow the user to be connected to the network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hee reference with the feature of wherein said system facilitates real-time learning of said second language by said first user through spoken conversations by enabling an A/V interaction between said first user and said second user only if said first user is verified, by said language ability testing and verification module, to have a skill level in said second language meeting a particular criterion, as taught by the Yun reference, in order to ensure the objective evidence for ascertaining the user’s skill level (see abstract).
Claim 7: The Hee reference is silent on the teaching of wherein said system facilitates real-time learning of said second language by said first user through spoken conversations by enabling an A/V interaction between said first user and said second user only if said second user is verified, by said language ability testing and verification module, to have a skill level in said second language reaching a particular threshold.
However, the Yun reference provides a teaching of wherein said system facilitates real-time learning of said second language by said first user through spoken conversations by enabling an A/V interaction between said first user and said second user only if said second user is verified, by said language ability testing and verification module, to have a skill level in said second language reaching a particular threshold (see page 5 third paragraph checking if the user’s proficiency level is sufficient prior to allow the user to be connected to the network and page 5 last paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the with the feature of wherein said system facilitates real-time learning of said second language by said first user through spoken conversations by enabling an A/V interaction between said first user and said second user only if said second user is verified, by said language ability testing and verification module, to have a skill level in said second language reaching a particular threshold, as taught by the Yun reference, in order to ensure the objective evidence for ascertaining the user’s skill level (see abstract).
Claim 8: The Hee reference is silent on the teaching of wherein said system facilitates real-time learning of said second language by said first user through spoken conversations by enabling an A/V interaction between said first user and said second user only if said second user is verified, by said language ability testing and verification module, to have a skill level in said first language reaching a particular threshold.
However, the Yun reference provides a teaching of wherein said system facilitates real-time learning of said second language by said first user through spoken conversations by enabling an A/V interaction between said first user and said second user only if said second user is verified, by said language ability testing and verification module, to have a skill level in said first language reaching a particular threshold (see page 5 third paragraph checking if the user’s proficiency level is sufficient prior to allow the user to be connected to the network, page 5 last paragraph and page 4 third paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hee reference with the feature of wherein said system facilitates real-time learning of said second language by said first user through spoken conversations by enabling an A/V interaction between said first user and said second user only if said second user is verified, by said language ability testing and verification module, to have a skill level in said first language reaching a particular threshold, as taught by the Yun reference, in order to ensure the objective evidence for ascertaining the user’s skill level (see abstract).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hee KR 20190011540 and in view of JP 2010175684 and further in view of Swank US10043410
Claim 10: The Hee reference is silent on the teaching of, wherein said system issues an amount of redeemable credits based on said score for said first user.
However, the Swank reference provides a teaching of wherein said system issues an amount of redeemable credits based on said score for said first user (see col. 14:20-30 reward when the user achieve certain achievement level).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hee reference with the feature of wherein said system issues an amount of redeemable credits based on said score for said first user, as taught by the Swank reference, in order to motivate the user.
Claim 11: The Hee reference is silent on the teaching of wherein said system issues an amount of redeemable credits based on said score for said second user.
However, the Swank reference provides a teaching of wherein said system issues an amount of redeemable credits based on said score for said first user (see col. 14:20-30 reward when the user achieve certain achievement level).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Swank reference with the feature of wherein said system issues an amount of redeemable credits based on said score for said second user, as taught by the Swank reference, in order to motivate the user.
Claim 12: The Hee reference is silent on the teaching of wherein said redeemable credits comprise a monetary credit.
However, the Swank reference provides a teaching of wherein said redeemable credits comprise a monetary credit (see col. 14:20-30 the credit in the form of money or gift card).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hee reference with the feature of wherein said redeemable credits comprise a monetary credit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hee reference with the feature of wherein said redeemable credits comprise a monetary credit, as taught by the Swank reference, in order to motivate the user.
Claim 13: The Hee reference is silent on the teaching of wherein said redeemable credits comprise a monetary credit.
However, the Swank reference provides a teaching of wherein said redeemable credits comprise a monetary credit (see col. 14:20-30 the credit in the form of money or gift card).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hee reference with the feature of wherein said redeemable credits comprise a monetary credit, as taught by the Swank reference, in order to motivate the user.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hee KR 20190011540 and in view of Nomoto JP 2010175684 and further in view of Ryu KR 101011773 B1
Claim 14: The Hee reference provides a teaching of wherein the system comprises: a confidence assessment software module configured to record a Confidence Score of said first user, based on at least one measurement taken by the system.
However, the Ryu reference provides a teaching of wherein the system comprises: a confidence assessment software module configured to record a Confidence Score of said first user, based on at least one measurement taken by the system (see page 5 paragraph 1 “the user and the user based on the difficulty of the vocabulary and syntax used when response levels of learning ability” ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the with the feature of wherein the system comprises: a confidence assessment software module configured to record a Confidence Score of said first user, based on at least one measurement taken by the system, as taught by the Ryu reference, as an objective measurement of the user’s skill.
Claim 15: The Hee reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the system grants or prevents special access privileges to said first user if said first user’s Confidence Score reaches and/or exceeds a preselected threshold for Confidence Scores set for, or otherwise applicable to them.
However, the Ryu reference provides a teaching of wherein the system grants or prevents special access privileges to said first user if said first user’s Confidence Score reaches and/or exceeds a preselected threshold for Confidence Scores set for, or otherwise applicable to them (see page 4 paragraph 2 checking the learning level before allowing access the training level).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the with the feature of wherein the system grants or prevents special access privileges to said first user if said first user’s Confidence Score reaches and/or exceeds a preselected threshold for Confidence Scores set for, or otherwise applicable to them, as an objective measurement of the user’s skill.
Claim 16: The Hee reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the system provides the first user with access to a second A/V interaction, if the first user’s Confidence Score falls below the preselected threshold for Confidence Scores applicable to them.
However, the Ryu reference provides a teaching of wherein the system provides the first user with access to a second A/V interaction, if the first user’s Confidence Score falls below the preselected threshold for Confidence Scores applicable to them (see paragraph 4 verifying the user’s learning ability and matching the user with an instructor depending on the user’s learning ability).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the with the feature of wherein the system provides the first user with access to a second A/V interaction, if the first user’s Confidence Score falls below the preselected threshold for Confidence Scores applicable to them, as an objective measurement of the user’s skill.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hee KR 20190011540 and in view of Nomoto JP 2010175684 and further in view of Yang US 20170098379
Claim 17: The Hee reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the system grants or prevents special access privileges to said first user if said ratio of the cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction reaches and/or exceeds a preselected threshold for Confidence Scores applicable to them.
However, the Yang reference provides a teaching of wherein the system grants or prevents special access privileges to said first user if said ratio of the cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction reaches and/or exceeds a preselected threshold for Confidence Scores applicable to them. (see paragraph 23 and 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hee reference with the feature of wherein the system grants or prevents special access privileges to said first user if said ratio of the cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction reaches and/or exceeds a preselected threshold for Confidence Scores applicable to them, as taught by the Yang reference, in order to ensure that the user’s personal learning needs are met.
Claim 18: The Hee reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the system grants or prevents special access privileges to said first user if said ratio of the cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction meets or exceeds a preselected threshold for a ratio related to speaking time applicable to them.
However, the Yang reference provides a teaching of wherein the system grants or prevents special access privileges to said first user if said ratio of the cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction reaches and/or exceeds a preselected threshold for Confidence Scores applicable to them (see paragraph 23 and 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hee reference with the feature of wherein the system grants or prevents special access privileges to said first user if said ratio of the cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction reaches and/or exceeds a preselected threshold for Confidence Scores applicable to them, as taught by the Yang reference, in order to ensure that the user’s personal learning needs are met.
Claim 19: The Hee reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the system provides the first user with access to a second A/V interaction, if said ratio of the cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction falls below the preselected threshold for speaking time applicable to them.
However, the Yang reference provides a teaching of wherein the system provides the first user with access to a second A/V interaction, if said ratio of the cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction falls below the preselected threshold for speaking time applicable to them (see paragraph 23 and 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hee reference with the feature of wherein the system provides the first user with access to a second A/V interaction, if said ratio of the cumulative amount of time that said first user spends speaking during said A/V interaction to the total time of said A/V interaction falls below the preselected threshold for speaking time applicable to them, as taught by the Yang reference, in order to ensure that the user’s personal learning needs are met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715