DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering each of claims 1, 9 and 17 as representative claims, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
prompt a first target object for recognizing by a user; receive a feedback response from the user; determine a correctness of the feedback response by comparing the feedback response with an answer; and adjust a level or a type of a second target object based on a guideline associated with the correctness of the feedback response, wherein the second target object is provided for recognizing by the user after the first target object is provided.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). When considering the abstract idea group, certain methods of organizing human activity, the current claims correspond to the sub-grouping managing personal behavior. For instance, after presenting a user with a first object, the user is prompted to recognize the first object; so that the user provides a response to the prompt; and furthermore, after determining the accuracy of the user’s response to the initial prompt above, the user is presented with a second target, wherein the level/type of the second target is adjusted based on the accuracy of the user’s response to the initial prompt, etc.
Similarly, given the limitations that recite the process of: determining the correctness of the user’s feedback response by comparing the feedback response with a answer; adjusting the level or type of a second target object based on a guideline associated with the correctness of the feedback response, etc., the claims also correspond to a mental process; such as, an evaluation, an observation, a judgment, etc.
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-Two:
The claims recite additional element(s), wherein a computing device (e.g., a computer that incorporates basic computer units, including a processor, a memory, etc.) is utilized to facilitated the recited steps/functions regarding: generating/presenting a prompt to a user (e.g., “prompting a first target object for recognizing by a user”); collecting input(s) from the user (e.g., “receiving a feedback response from the user by the computing device”); analyzing, using an algorithm/rule, the collected input(s) in order to determine one or more results (e.g., “determining a correctness of the feedback response by comparing the feedback response with a stored answer by the computing device; and adjusting a level or a type of a second target object based on a guideline associated with the correctness of the feedback response”); presenting pertinent information based on the analysis result (e.g., providing “second target object . . . for recognizing by the user after the first target object is provided”), etc.
However, the claimed additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional element(s) are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Thus, when each claim is considered as a whole, the additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since they fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions. Accordingly, none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
In addition, the utilization of the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate the presentation of one more pertinent content items to a user(s); such as, the process of prompting a user to perform a given task/exercise, including presenting the user with a modified task/exercise based on the evaluation of the user’s response to the first task/exercise, etc., is directed to a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art (e.g., see US 2016/0321939; US 2014/0250043, etc.).
The above observation confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-24). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element(s) utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the findings above demonstrate that none of the claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
● Claims 9-16 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.
Claim 9 recites, “a signal receiving module . . . receiving a feedback response from the user by the computing device” (emphasis added). However, given the specification’s failure to clearly link an element—or a combination of elements—that corresponds to the claimed “signal receiving module” (e.g., see [0183]), the specification fails to provide sufficient written description regarding the “signal receiving module” above. Although the specification sates, “the computing device (3000) could receive the feedback response by a hey press” ([0183], emphasis added), one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize what structural and/or functional feature is implied per the term, “hey press”, above.
Nevertheless, for examination purpose, the claimed “signal receiving module” is construed as an ordinary input device.
Note that, when an amendment is filed in reply to an objection or rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a), or first paragraph (pre-AIA ), a study of the entire application is often necessary to determine whether or not "new matter" is involved. Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP 2163.06).
35 U.S.C. 112(f)
5. 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112, sixth paragraph:
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.
● Claims 9-16 invoke 35 U.S.C.112(f) or pre AIA 35 U.S.C.112, sixth paragraph for the following reasons.
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.
This application includes claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are (see claim 9): “a signal receiving module”, “a processing module”, “a storage module” and “a displaying module”.
The specification describes: the “processing module” as one or more central processing units” ([0184]); the “storage module” as a volatile or non-volatile memory product known in the art ([0185]); and the “displaying module” as a finished product known in the art—such as, a displayer ([0186]).
However, regarding the claimed “signal receiving module”, the original written description (e.g., see [0183], etc.) fails to: (i) disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts that correspond to the above claimed module, and (ii) clearly link the corresponding (if any) structure, material, or acts to the claimed function(s) associated with the module (e.g., assuming that the “signal receiving module” is utilized for “receiving a feedback response from the user by the computing device”, per claim 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anantha 2016/0321939.
Regarding claim 1, Anantha teaches the following claimed limitations: a method for providing cognitive training by using a computing device, comprising: prompting a first target object for recognizing by a user; receiving a feedback response from the user by the computing device ([0003]; [0091]; [0092]: e.g., a computer-based system/method that provides cognitive training; wherein the system prompts the user to perform one or more tasks—such as, a task related to picture naming, wherein the user is prompted to name the picture being displayed to the user, etc., and accordingly, the user provides a corresponding response/feedback using one or more input devices; such as, a microphone, a keyboard, etc.); determining a correctness of the feedback response by comparing the feedback response with a stored answer by the computing device; and adjusting a level or a type of a second target object based on a guideline associated with the correctness of the feedback response, wherein the second target object is provided for recognizing by the user after the first target object is provided ([0061]; [0086]; [0088]; [0093]: e.g., after receiving the user’s response, the system determines whether the user has performed the task correctly. This indicates—at least implicitly—that the system compares the user’s response with a prestored correct answer in its memory/database. Thus, if the user has correctly performed the task, or if the user’s performance on the task is above a performance threshold, the system provides the user with a new task—such as, a more difficult task. If the user has failed to correctly perform the task, or if the user’s performance on the task is below a threshold, the system provides the user with a different task—such as, a less difficult task. The teaching above indicates that the system already implements a guideline associated with the correctness of the feedback response; thus, once it determines the correctness of the user’s response/feedback, it adjusts the type of the second target based on the guideline above; and wherein, the second target object is presented to the user after the first object is presented to the user).
Regarding claim 9, Anantha teaches the following claimed limitations: a computing device for providing cognitive training, comprising: a signal receiving module;
a processing module, configured to couple with the signal receiving module; a storage module, configured to couple with the processing module; and a displaying module, configured to couple with the processing module, wherein a code being stored in the storage module ([0003]; [0158] to [0165]: a computer-based system that provides cognitive training; wherein the computer-based system comprises a computer that incorporates various computer-components, including: a processor, a memory, and also input/output devices in the form of a keyboard, a display, etc., and furthermore, the computer communicates with one or more devices via a communication network. Thus, the system above already comprises a signal receiving module; a processing module, configured to couple with the signal receiving module; a storage module, configured to couple with the processing module; and a displaying module, configured to couple with the processing module, wherein a code being stored in the storage module), and after the processing module executing the code stored in the storage module, the computing device being able to execute steps as described below: prompting a first target object for recognizing by a user; receiving a feedback response from the user by the computing device ([0091]; [0092]: e.g., the system prompts the user to perform one or more tasks—such as, a task related to picture naming; wherein the user is prompted to name the picture being displayed to the user, etc., and accordingly, the user provides a corresponding response/feedback using one or more input devices; such as, a microphone, a keyboard, etc.); determining a correctness of the feedback response by comparing the feedback response with a stored answer by the computing device; and adjusting a level or a type of a second target object based on a guideline associated with the correctness of the feedback response, wherein the second target object is provided for recognizing by the user after the first target object is provided ([0061]; [0086]; [0088]; [0093]: e.g., after receiving the user’s response, the system determines whether the user has performed the task correctly. This indicates—at least implicitly—that the system compares the user’s response with a prestored correct answer in its memory/database. Thus, if the user has correctly performed the task, or if the user’s performance on the task is above a performance threshold, the system provides the user with a new task—such as, a more difficult task. If the user has failed to correctly perform the task, or if the user’s performance on the task is below a threshold, the system provides the user with a different task—such as, a less difficult task. The teaching above indicates that the system already implements a guideline associated with the correctness of the feedback response; and thus, once it determines the correctness of the user’s response/feedback, it adjusts the type of the second target based on the guideline above; and wherein, the second target object is presented to the user after the first object is presented to the user).
Regarding claim 17, Anantha teaches the following claimed limitations: a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium capable of providing cognitive training, after a computing device loading and executing a code stored in the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium ([0003]; [0158] to [0165]: a computer-based system that provides cognitive training; wherein the computer-based system comprises a computer that incorporates various computer-components, including: a processor, a memory, etc., and wherein the memory stores computer-executable instructions/code. Thus, the above already indicates a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium capable of providing cognitive training, after a computing device loading and executing a code stored in the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium), the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium being able to complete steps as described below: prompting a first target object for recognizing by a user; receiving a feedback response from the user by the computing device ([0091]; [0092]: e.g., the system prompts the user to perform one or more tasks—such as, a task related to picture naming, wherein the user is prompted to name the picture being displayed to the user, etc., and wherein the user provides a response/feedback using one or more input devices; such as, a microphone, a keyboard, etc.); determining a correctness of the feedback response by comparing the feedback response with a stored answer by the computing device; and adjusting a level or a type of a second target object based on a guideline associated with the correctness of the feedback response, wherein the second target object is provided for recognizing by the user after the first target object is provided ([0061]; [0086]; [0088]; [0093]: e.g., after receiving the user’s response, the system determines whether the user has performed the task correctly. This indicates—at least implicitly—that the system compares the user’s response with a prestored correct answer in its memory/database. Accordingly, if the user has correctly performed the task, or if the user’s performance on the task is above a performance threshold, the system provides the user with a new task—such as, a more difficult task. If the user has failed to correctly perform the task, or if the user’s performance on the task is below a threshold, the system provides the user with a different task—such as, a less difficult task. The teaching above indicates that the system already implements a guideline associated with the correctness of the feedback response; thus, once it determines the correctness of the user’s response/feedback, it adjusts the type of the second target based on the guideline above; and wherein, the second target object is presented to the user after the first object is presented to the user).
Anantha teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per each of the independent claims. Anantha further teaches:
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, wherein the first target object comprises at least one of a target image, a target text, and a target voice ([0091]: e.g., the exemplary task above that relates to picture naming—such as, prompting the user to name the picture being displayed, already indicates that the target object comprises at least a target image);
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, the correctness of the feedback response comprises at least one of a match result that the feedback response exactly matches with the stored answer or not and a match ratio that the feedback response is close to the stored answer ([0093]: e.g., the process of presenting the user with a new task when the user has correctly performed the task, etc., already indicates that the correctness of the feedback response comprises at least a match result that the user’s feedback response exactly matches the prestored correct answer or not. Note that the claim requires at least one of the two alternatives, but not both);
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 20, the guideline is that the level of the second target object is upgraded when the match result is that the feedback response exactly matches with the stored answer or when the match ratio is greater than or equal to a threshold, and the level of the second target object is downgraded when the match result is that the feedback response does not exactly match with the stored answer or when the match ratio is less than the threshold ([0088]; [0093]: e.g., as already discussed per claim 1, when the system determines, based on the user’s response, that the user has correctly performed the task—or the user’s performance on the task is above a performance threshold—, then the system subsequently provides the user with a more difficult task. This indicates the process of upgrading—per guideline—the level of the second target object when: (i) the match result indicates that the feedback response exactly matches with the stored answer, or (ii) the match ratio is greater than or equal to a threshold. Similarly, when the user has failed to correctly perform the task—or if the user’s performance is below a threshold—, then the system provides the user with a less difficult task. This indicates the process of downgrading the second target object when: (i) the match result indicates that the feedback response does not exactly match with the stored answer, or (ii) the match ratio is less than the threshold);
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 21, wherein the guideline is that the type of the second target object which is more difficult than the first target object is determined when the match result is that the feedback response exactly matches with the stored answer or when the match ratio is greater than or equal to a threshold, and the type of the second target object which is easier than the first target object is determined when the match result is that the feedback response does not exactly match with the stored answer or when the match ratio is less than the threshold ([0088]; [0093]: e.g., here also once the system determines, based on the user’s feedback/response, that the user has correctly performed the task—or the user’s performance on the task is above a performance threshold—, then the system subsequently provides the user with a more difficult task. This indicates the process of determining a type of second target object that is more difficult than the first object when: (i) the match result indicates that the feedback response exactly matches with the stored answer, or (ii) the match ratio is greater than or equal to a threshold. Similarly, when the user has failed to correctly perform the task—or if the user’s performance is below a threshold—then, the system provides the user with a less difficult task. This indicates the process of determining a type of second target object that is easier than the first object when: (i) the match result indicates that the feedback response does not exactly match with the stored answer, or (ii) the match ratio is less than the threshold);
Regarding claims 6, 14 and 22, wherein the stored answer comprises at least one of a primary answer and a secondary answer ([0088]; [0093]: e.g., the system determines, after analyzing the user’s response, whether the user has correctly performed the task, or whether the user’s performance is above or below one or more thresholds. The above indicates the prestored answer comprise a primary answer, and/or a secondary answer. It is also worth to note, per the claim language above, that the claim requires just one of the two alternatives, but not necessarily both. Nevertheless, the teaching above is still relevant to address the claim);
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 23, the prompting of the first object for recognizing by the user is performed by the computing device ([0091]: e.g., the computer generates the prompt using one or more formats—such as, by displaying text, image and/or playing audio. Thus, the computing device is the one performing the prompting process).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 8, 16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Anantha 2016/0321939 in view of Gao 2020/0121236.
Regarding each of claims 8, 16 and 24, Anantha teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claims 1, 9 and 17 respectively.
Anantha does not expressly describe receiving a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the user; inputting the magnetic resonance imaging into an image analysis model, and then an image analysis result corresponding to the magnetic resonance imaging being generated in real time by the image analysis model; and automatically determining the first target object based on the image analysis result by the computing device.
However, Gao teaches a computer-based system that acquires MRI data related to a user—such as, a set of MRI images related to the brain of the user ([0169]; [0172]; [0173]); wherein the system implements one or more machine-learning models, which are utilized to analyze the MRI data above and classify the user based on the analysis result; and furthermore, it utilizes classification result above to generate one or more treatments, including a treatment in the form of software/computer-based cognitive therapy ([0174] to [0177]).
Note the above process of implementing one or more machine-learning models to analyze the MRI data, including classifying the user based on the analysis results, etc., already indicates the system already implements an image analysis model that generals—in real-time—an image analysis result.
It is further worth to note Anantha also considers, as part of the user’s content data, the user’s medical data in order to determine one or more cognitive tasks that are pertinent to the user ([0066]; [0067] lines 1-6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Anantha in view of Gao; for example, by expanding the medical information of the user to include one or more MRI images relate to the user’s brain; wherein the system incorporates a portable MRI scanner to acquire the images, and/or the system electronically receives the user’s MRI images from a clinical database; and one or more machine-learning models are also incorporated into the system, so that the system analyzes the user’s MRI images and classifies the user according to one or more diagnoses; and furthermore, the system utilizes—as part of the user’s context data—one or more of the diagnoses above when determining one or more cognitive tasks to the user; so that the suitability of the task(s) being presented to the user would be more pertinent to the user’s specific condition, etc.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715