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 .
Claims 1-14 are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments appear to have obviated the rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) and the specification objections. Therefore, those objections and rejections are withdrawn.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The present application is a continuation of foreign priority to Japan JP2023-017106, filed on 02/07/2023.
The examiner acknowledges that a certified copy of Japan application No. JP2023-017106 has been retrieved (on 10/06/2023, in Japanese), as required by 37 CFR 1.55. The examiner notes that a translation of Japan No. JP2023-017106 does not appear to have been furnished to date.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 28, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “fifth node the feature” should be “fifth node and the feature”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Specifically, claim 10 recites “calculat[ing], instead of the structural loss according to the fourth cosine similarity value and the fifth cosine similarity value, a structural loss according to a sixth cosine similarity value ….” (Emphasis added.) That is, claim 10 purports to delete the requirement of claim 1 that the fourth and fifth cosine similarity values be calculated, which violates the requirement of § 112(d) that each dependent claim include all of the limitations of the claim on which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to an information processing apparatus, corresponding to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the limitations:
modify input graph data to generate two pieces of new graph data - In the context of the claim limitation, this encompasses a mental process of evaluating observed input data to generate two pieces of new graph data.
calculate a contrastive loss between the first graph data and the second graph data according to: a first cosine similarity value between a feature of a second node in the second graph data and a feature of a first node in the first graph data, the second node corresponding to the first node, a second cosine similarity value between a feature of a node, other than the second node, in the second graph data and the feature of the first node, and a third cosine similarity value between a feature of a node, other than the first node, in the first graph data and the feature of the first node - MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) provides “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) further provides “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea).” Under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in light of the specification, the calculate contrastive loss limitations encompass the mathematical concepts of calculating approximate similarities between node features (e.g., by calculating cosine similarities) as described in the specification in paragraphs 0032, 0039, 0061 and 0075.
calculate a structural loss between the first graph data and the second graph data according to a fourth cosine similarity value between a feature of a node in a vicinity of a fourth node in the first graph data or the second graph data and a feature of a third node in the first graph data, the fourth node corresponding to the third node, and a fifth cosine similarity value between a feature of a node in a vicinity of a node, other than the fourth node, in graph data to which the fourth node belongs and the feature of the third node - In the context of the claim limitation, this encompasses a mathematical concept of calculating loss according to similarity of a feature; Under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in light of the specification, the calculate structural loss limitations encompass the mathematical concepts of calculating approximate similarities between node features (e.g., by calculating cosine similarities) as described in the specification in paragraphs 0032, 0039, 0061 and 0075.
update the extraction model using the contrastive loss and the structural loss by calculating a weighted sum of the contrastive loss and the structural loss as a final loss and adjusting a trainable weight of the extraction model so as to minimize the final loss – This limitation recites the mathematical concept of calculating a weighted sum and adjusting a weight based thereon.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “a processor including hardware” and that “the extraction model [is] a neural network model” – these are mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component or merely assert that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer. Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The claim recites “extract[ing], by an extraction model, features of respective nodes constituting any two pieces of first graph data and second graph data among the input graph data and the two pieces of generated graph data”, which recites the insignificant extra-solution activities of mere data gathering and output. MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 is directed to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception. Mere instruction to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of “extract[ing], by an extraction model, features of respective nodes constituting any two pieces of first graph data and second graph data among the input graph data and the two pieces of generated graph date” is directed to insignificant extra-solution activities that are well known, routine and conventional because the limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements which provide an inventive concept nor represent significantly more than the abstract idea, and the claim is not patent eligible. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
Step 1: Claim 2 is directed to an information processing apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the limitations:
“the node in the vicinity of the fourth node includes one or more nodes whose edges are connected to the fourth node”; “the node in the vicinity of the node other than the fourth node includes one or more nodes whose edges are connected to respective nodes other than the fourth node - In the context of the claim limitation, this encompasses a mental process of evaluating observed node.
Step 2A Prong 2: Please see analysis of the independent claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: Please see analysis of the independent claim 1.
Claim 3:
Step 1: Claim 3 is directed to an information processing apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the limitations:
“the node in the vicinity of the fourth node includes one or more nodes in a vicinity of the fourth node and having no edge connected to the fourth node”; “the node in the vicinity of the node other than the fourth node includes one or more nodes in a vicinity of respective nodes other than the fourth node and having no edge connected to the respective nodes other than the fourth node” - In the context of the claim limitation, this encompasses a mental process of evaluating observed node
Step 2A Prong 2: Please see analysis of the independent claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: Please see analysis of the independent claim 1.
Claim 4:
Step 1: Claim 4 is directed to an information processing apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the limitations:
estimate homophily between the first graph data and the second graph data based on a sixth cosine similarity value between local structures of the first graph data and the second graph data - In the context of the claim limitation, this encompasses a mental process of evaluating graph based on observed similarity of local structures of graphs.
and adjust a weight in the weighted sum according to a degree of similarity of the local structure - In the context of the claim limitation, this encompasses a mental process of evaluating a weight based on similarity of the structure.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “wherein the processor is configured to” – this is a mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component or merely asserts that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer. Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 is directed to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception. Mere instruction to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements which provide an inventive concept nor represent significantly more than the abstract idea, and the claim is not patent eligible. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5:
Step 1: Claim 5 is directed to an information processing apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the limitations:
estimate a distribution of degrees of nodes of the first graph data and the second graph data - In the context of the claim limitation, this encompasses a mental process of evaluating a distribution of nodes of the graphs.
and in a calculation of the structural loss, exclude a node having a degree of a predetermined value or more from the calculation of the structural loss - In the context of the claim limitation, this encompasses a mental process of evaluating the loss.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “wherein the processor is configured to” – this is a mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component or are merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer. Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 is directed to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception. Mere instruction to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements which provide an inventive concept nor represent significantly more than the abstract idea, and the claim is not patent eligible. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6:
Step 1: Claim 6 is directed to an information processing apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the limitations:
wherein the input graph data includes at least any of data of a graphed chemical molecule structure, data of a graphed citation relationship of a paper, data of a graphed purchase relationship, data of a graphed co-selling relationship of a product, data of a graphed relationship of a user in a social network, data of a graphed design drawing of an electric circuit, data of a graphed source code of a program, and a plurality of pieces of graphed sensor data - In the context of the claim limitation, this encompasses a mental process of evaluating input graph data.
Step 2A Prong 2: Please see analysis of the independent claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: Please see analysis of the independent claim 1.
Claim 7:
Step 1: Claim 7 is directed to an information processing apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the limitations:
wherein the extraction model extracts the feature…having a message passing mechanism - In the context of the claim limitation, this encompasses a mental process of evaluating model based on feature.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “by a graph neural network” – this is a mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component or are merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer. Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 is directed to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception. Mere instruction to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements which provide an inventive concept nor represent significantly more than the abstract idea, and the claim is not patent eligible. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8:
Step 1: Claim 8 is directed to an information processing apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the limitations:
the fourth cosine similarity value is a cosine similarity value between an average value of features of nodes in the vicinity of the fourth node and the feature of the third node - In the context of the claim limitation, this encompasses a mental process of evaluating similarity of a feature of the node and nodes are same.
Step 2A Prong 2: Please see analysis of the independent claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: Please see analysis of the independent claim 1.
Claim 9:
Step 1: Claim 9 is directed to an information processing apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the limitations:
the fourth cosine similarity value is a cosine similarity value between features of respective nodes in the vicinity of the fourth node and the feature of the third node - In the context of the claim limitation, this encompasses a mental process of evaluating similarity of a feature of the node and nodes are same.
Step 2A Prong 2: Please see analysis of the independent claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: Please see analysis of the independent claim 1.
Claim 10:
Step 1: Claim 10 is directed to an information processing apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the limitations:
calculate, instead of the structural loss according to the fourth cosine similarity value and the fifth cosine similarity value, a structural loss according to a sixth cosine similarity value between a feature of a node in a vicinity of a fifth node in the input graph data and a feature of a sixth node in the input graph data, the fifth node corresponding to the sixth node - In the context of the claim limitation, this encompasses a mathematical concept of calculating loss based on similarity.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “wherein the processor is configured to” – this is a mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component or are merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer. Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 is directed to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception. Mere instruction to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements which provide an inventive concept nor represent significantly more than the abstract idea, and the claim is not patent eligible. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11:
Step 1: Claim 11 is directed to an information processing apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the limitations:
the sixth cosine similarity value is a cosine similarity value between an average value of features of nodes in the vicinity of the fifth node [and] the feature of sixth third node - In the context of the claim limitation, this encompasses mental process of evaluating similarity of nodes.
Step 2A Prong 2: Please see analysis of claim 10.
Step 2B Analysis: Please see analysis of claim 10.
Claim 12:
Step 1: Claim 12 is directed to an information processing apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the limitations:
the sixth cosine similarity value is a cosine similarity value between features of respective nodes in the vicinity of the fifth node and the feature of the third node - In the context of the claim limitation, this encompasses mental process of evaluating similarity of nodes.
Step 2A Prong 2: Please see analysis of claim 10.
Step 2B Analysis: Please see analysis of claim 10.
Claim 13:
Step 1: Claim 13 is directed to an information processing method, corresponding to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites “receiving graph data”; “extracting, by an extraction model, features of respective nodes constituting any two pieces of first graph data and second graph data among the input graph data and the two pieces of generated graph data”, which recites the insignificant extra-solution activities of mere data gathering and output. MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recitation of “receiving graph data”; “extracting, by an extraction model, features of respective nodes constituting any two pieces of first graph data and second graph data among the input graph data and the two pieces of generated graph data” are directed to an insignificant extra-solution activities that are well known, routine and conventional because the limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements which provide an inventive concept nor represent significantly more than the abstract idea, and the claim is not patent eligible. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14:
Step 1: Claim 14 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “[a] non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program for causing a computer to implement” – this is a mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component or are merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer. Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Otherwise, the analysis at this step is the same as in claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 is directed to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception. Mere instruction to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Otherwise, the analysis at this step is the same as in claim 1. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements which provide an inventive concept nor represent significantly more than the abstract idea, and the claim is not patent eligible. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 6, 2026 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are eligible under 35 USC § 101 because (a) they do not recite mathematical concepts because they are merely based on mathematical concepts and are not practically mentally performable; (b) any judicial exception recited is integrated into a practical application and the instant application is analogous to Ex parte Desjardins insofar as both claim specific, technological solutions to problems in the technical field of machine learning; (c) the instant specification recites a technological solution of the problem of all negative examples being equally treated that is reflected in the claims’ recitation of calculating a structural loss; and (d) the claims allegedly recite significantly more than the judicial exception because they recite a specific technique for processing graph data and training an extraction model. Remarks at 14-22.
Regarding (a), the independent claims as amended recite mathematical concepts, not merely concepts that are based on mathematics. Specifically, they recite, inter alia, calculating a contrastive loss according to three separate cosine similarity values; calculating a structural loss according to two more cosine similarity values; and calculating a weighted sum of the two losses. Regardless of whether other additional elements of the claim reflect a technological improvement to a technological problem (Examiner contends that they do not), these limitations in particular are not directed to the use of mathematics to achieve a particular technological result. They are directed to mathematics per se.
Regarding (b), Desjardins is distinguishable. The claims in Desjardins recited a specific improvement to the technological problem of catastrophic forgetting identified in the specification. Specifically, the independent claims explicitly recited that the specific training method claimed had the effect of improving performance on one task without sacrificing performance on another. By contrast, here, even assuming arguendo that specification discloses a technological solution to a technological problem, which Examiner does not concede, that improvement is not reflected in the claims themselves. To the extent that the previously recited mathematical machinations are directed to the solution of any problem at all, they are used only to “adjust[] a trainable weight of the extraction model so as to minimize the final loss.” However, the last portion of that clause merely recites an intended result of the weight adjustment and is not entitled to patentable weight, and even if it were, the recited improvement would only be to the abstract idea of loss minimization, not to any technical field, and the abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(I). Moreover, the weight adjustment is recited at such a high level of generality that it may be regarded as a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception, or as a mere restriction of the judicial exception to the field of use of neural network training. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), (h).
Regarding (c), to the extent that Applicant is relying on the recitation of calculating a structural loss to provide the inventive concept, Applicant is misguided. As previously noted, calculating a structural loss is part of the abstract idea itself, and the abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept.
Regarding (d), the alleged “specific technique for processing graph data” is in fact a mere series of mathematical manipulations and is therefore an abstract idea. And as previously noted, the use of those mathematics to train a neural network is recited at such a high level of generality that the perfunctory recitation of that use cannot provide an inventive concept for the reasons noted above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C VAUGHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4849. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a-5:00p ET.
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, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at 571-272-7796. 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 C VAUGHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights