The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 2 June 2026. THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
In response to the restriction requirement, Applicant’s election of claims {1-10, 17-20} with traverse of the instant application in the reply filed on 2 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 11-16 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 8, 10 includes limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
Claim 1-10, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
There is no art rejection for claims 1-10, 17-20.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The 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.
In claim 1, claim limitations "text encoding component", "data creation component", “model training component”, have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. The specification does not provide descriptions of the structure of these elements.
In claim 6 and 8, claim limitations "query response component”, have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. The specification does not provide descriptions of the structure of these elements.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim(s) limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
112(b) Rejection
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
A claim is indefinite if, when read in light of the specification, it fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 110 USPQ.2d 1688, U.S. Supreme Court (2014).
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, including metaphorical terminology lacking structural / procedural definitions: "text encoding component", "data creation component", “model training component”, the specification does not provide sufficient structural / procedural description to determine the scope of these limitations, the claims are therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-10, which depend on above rejected claim 1, are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, including metaphorical terminology lacking structural / procedural definitions: "query response component”, the specification does not provide sufficient structural / procedural description to determine the scope of these limitations, the claims are therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-10, which depend on above rejected claim 1, are rejected for the same reason.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) Rejections
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, including metaphorical terminology lacking support of structural / procedural description: "text encoding component", "data creation component", “model training component”, the specification does not provide sufficient structural / procedural description for these limitations. The claims are therefore rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claims 2-10, which depend on above rejected claim 1, are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, including metaphorical terminology lacking support of structural / procedural description: "query response component”, the specification does not provide sufficient structural / procedural description for these limitations. The claims are therefore rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Judicial Exception
Claims 1-10, 17-20 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-10,
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 1,
Step 1: The claim recites a machine, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites: “… generates, using a first machine learning model layer, semantic representations of first text present in respective defined portions of a document; … generates a group of training data samples corresponding to the document, wherein respective ones of the training data samples comprise a semantic representation, of the semantic representations and associated with a defined portion of the respective defined portions of the document, and a reference to the document; and … to determine a predicted document from a group of documents, comprising the document, having second text that exhibits at least a threshold degree of similarity to an input query as determined with reference to a defined similarity function” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “generates”, “to determine”, in the limitation citied above encompasses observing / analyzing / processing text data received with data processing models to make prediction, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas; Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “A system, comprising: a memory that stores executable components; and a processor that executes the executable components stored in the memory …”, “…text encoding /dataset creation component”, “model training component that trains, using the group of training data samples, a second machine learning model layer…”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly. the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 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, the claim recites the additional elements of “A system, comprising: a memory that stores executable components; and a processor that executes the executable components stored in the memory …”, “…text encoding /dataset creation component”, “model training component that trains, using the group of training data samples, a second machine learning model layer…”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 2-10 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-10 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 2, the claim recites limitation of “… wherein the semantic representations of the first text comprise embedding vectors generated from the first text by the first machine learning model layer”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing text data received with data processing models to make prediction, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 3, the claim recites limitation of “… wherein the dataset creation component modifies the semantic representations by removing respective components of the embedding vectors according to a dropout parameter prior to generating the group of training data samples”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing text data received with data processing models to make prediction, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 4, the claim recites limitation of “… wherein the first machine learning model layer is not trained using any of the group of training data samples”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing text data received with data processing models to make prediction, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 5, the claim recites limitation of “… wherein the group of training data samples is a first group of training data samples related to a first class of input queries, wherein the dataset creation component further generates a second group of training data samples relating to a second class of input queries that is not the first class”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing text data received with data processing models to make prediction, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The claim recites additional element of “wherein the model training component trains the second machine learning model layer using the first group of training data samples and the second group of training data samples”, which is merely using computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “wherein the model training component trains the second machine learning model layer using the first group of training data samples and the second group of training data samples”, which is merely using computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 6, the claim recites limitation of “…returns, in response to the input query being provided to the second machine learning model layer and further in response to the second machine learning model layer determining that the document has the second text, a second defined portion of the document that is not any of the first defined portions”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing text data received with data processing models to make prediction, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The claim recites additional element of “a query response component …”, which is merely using computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “a query response component …”, which is merely using computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 7, the claim recites limitation of “… wherein the document is an article describing a technical issue, and wherein the first defined portions of the document comprise at least one portion selected from a group of portions comprising a title of the article, a summary of the article, a first description of a symptom of the technical issue, and a second description of a cause of the technical issue”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing text data received with data processing models to make prediction, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 8, the claim recites limitation of “… wherein the second defined portion of the document comprises content of a type selected from a group of types comprising information pertaining to a resolution of the technical issue and instructions to resolve the technical issue”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing text data received with data processing models to make prediction, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 9, the claim recites limitation of “… wherein the first text is in a first language, and wherein the semantic representations comprise first semantic representations of the first text and second semantic representations of third text, in a second language that is not the first language, present in the respective defined portions of the document”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing text data received with data processing models to make prediction, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 10, the claim recites limitation of “…returns, in response to a second input query being provided to the second machine learning model layer in an input language selected from a group comprising the first language and the second language, a text response in a same language as the input language”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing text data received with data processing models to make prediction, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The claim recites additional element of “a query response component…”, which is merely using computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “a query response component…”, which is merely using computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 17-20,
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 17,
Step 1: The claim recites an article of manufacturing, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites: “… generating semantic data based on first text located in respective sections of a document; constructing a training dataset corresponding to the document, the training dataset comprising samples, wherein respective ones of the samples comprise a portion of the semantic data associated with a section of the sections of the document and reference data indicative of an identity of the document; and … to determine a predicted document from a group of documents, comprising the document, that comprises second text that is determined to be similar to a query by at least a threshold degree” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “generating”, “to determine”, in the limitation citied above encompasses observing / analyzing / processing text data received with data processing models to make prediction, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas; Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “A non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operation…”, “training, using the training dataset, a machine learning model …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly. the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 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, the claim recites the additional elements of “A non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operation…”, “training, using the training dataset, a machine learning model …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 18-20 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 17. Therefore, claims 18-20 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 18, the claim recites limitation of “…wherein the machine learning model is a first machine learning model, and wherein the semantic data comprises embedding vectors derived from the first text by a second machine learning model”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing text data received with data processing models to make prediction, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 19, the claim recites limitation of “…wherein the generating of the semantic data comprises replacing components of the embedding vectors with null components, the components of the embedding vectors being defined by a dropout parameter”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing text data received with data processing models to make prediction, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 20, the claim recites additional element of “…returning, in response to the query being provided to the machine learning model and further in response to the machine learning model determining that the document comprises the second text, third text from the document that is not the second text”, which is which is extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “…returning, in response to the query being provided to the machine learning model and further in response to the machine learning model determining that the document comprises the second text, third text from the document that is not the second text”, which is which is extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10, 17-20 include allowable subject matter since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per, MPEP §2111.01 or Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069, 1069 (Fed.Cir. 1999), none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in claims 1-10, 17-20.
In interpreting the claims, in light of the specification filed on 3 October 2023, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior arts of record.
Regarding the amended independent claims, the primary reason for the allowance is the inclusion of the specific process / structure of text document search via text encoding / training data generation / training with two machine learning model layers to respond to user input queries using a pre-defined similarity function.
None of the cited prior art references, singly or in combination, fully teaches all limitations of independent claims 1 and 17.
Regarding the dependent claims, which include all the limitations of the independent claims, are also allowed.
The followings are references close to the invention claimed:
Howell et al., US-PGPUB NO.20180157664A1 [hereafter Howell] teaches using ML for query search of database. However Howell does not teach the specific process / structure of text document search via text encoding / training data generation / training with two machine learning model layers to respond to user input queries using a pre-defined similarity function.
Safronov et al., US-PGPUB NO.20200210891A1 [hereafter Safronov] teaches using training dataset generation for ML models. However Safronov does not teach the specific process / structure of text document search via text encoding / training data generation / training with two machine learning model layers to respond to user input queries using a pre-defined similarity function.
Chen et al., US-PGPUB NO.20220253435A1 [hereafter Chen] teaches using multi-layer encoding model for data searching. However Chen does not teach the specific process / structure of text document search via text encoding / training data generation / training with two machine learning model layers to respond to user input queries using a pre-defined similarity function.
Ferrucci et al., US-PATENT NO.11803401B1 [hereafter Ferrucci] teaches data search with ML models. However Ferrucci does not teach the specific process / structure of text document search via text encoding / training data generation / training with two machine learning model layers to respond to user input queries using a pre-defined similarity function.
Kandola et al., “Learning semantic similarithy”, NIPS 2002 [hereafter Kandola] teaches text similarity recognition with ML models. However Kandola does not teach the specific process / structure of text document search via text encoding / training data generation / training with two machine learning model layers to respond to user input queries using a pre-defined similarity function.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
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.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights