DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly
more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be
determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of
invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the
claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is
to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A
analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined
whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts,
mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in
Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the
second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A,
Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible
application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any
element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the
claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019
PEG for more details of the analysis.
Step 1
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-12, 13-19, 20 are directed to a method, system and medium of feature access control using ML model. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Step 2A,
Step 2A, Prong 1
Following the determination of whether or not the claims fall within one of the four
categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g.
mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human
activity) (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this case, the claims are determined to recite a judicial
exception as explained below.
Regarding Claims 1, 13 and 20 these claims recite
identifying, by one or more processors, a first entity and a second entity associated with the first entity; applying, by the one or more processors, a trained machine learning model to a characteristic of at least one of the first entity or the second entity to identify one or more features within an online document system to recommend, wherein the machine learning model has been trained using feature training data describing one or more characteristics of a plurality of entities and describing historical activity associated with a usage of a plurality of features within the online document system by the plurality of entities; and outputting, by the one or more processors, an indication of the one or more identified features to the first entity.
The claims recite a mental process. As set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer”. These are recited at a high level and they are also disclosed as a human user performing these functions, simply using a computer as a tool-see spec, [0019]-[0029], Fig. 1, etc. Thus, the claim recites abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Following the determination that the claims recite a judicial exception, it must be
determined if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a
practical application of the exception (Step 2A, Prong 2). In this case, after considering
all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the
claims do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical
application of the exception as explained below.
In Prong Two, a claim is evaluated as a whole to determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. A claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception, and thus is patent eligible, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The claims recite an abstract idea and further the claims as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding Claims 1, 13, 20 these claims
This limitation recites using one or more neural networks as a tool to perform an
abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f).)
This limitation is understood to be generic computer equipment and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.0S(f))
Step 2B
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are
directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element
or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly
more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). In this case, after considering all claim
elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do
not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than
the judicial exception for the same reasons given above in the Step 2A, Prong 2
analysis. Furthermore, each additional element identified above as being insignificant
extra-solution activity is also well-known, routine, conventional as described below.
Claims 1, 13 and 20: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 elements amount to no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The underlying concept merely receives information, analyzes it, and store the results of the analysis – this concept is not meaningfully different than concepts found by the courts to be abstract (see Electric Power Group, collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis; see Cybersource, obtaining and comparing intangible data; see Digitech, organizing information through mathematical correlations; see Grams, diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results; see Cyberfone, using categories to organize store and transmit information; see Smartgene, comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options). For example, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “identifying…, “applying”, “outputting…” These elements are recited at a high level of generality and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the computer art. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2A/2B Prong 2 Dependent Claims
Regarding to claim 2, 14
Claim 2, 14 merely recite other additional elements that define identifying the entities which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 3, 15
Claim 3, 15 merely recite other additional elements that define outputting the indication of the features which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 4, 9, 16
Claim 4, 9, 16 merely recite other additional elements that define outputting the indication of the features and soring the features which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 5, 17
Claim 5, 17 merely recite other additional elements that define the features and soring the features which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 6, 18
Claim 6, 18 merely recite other additional elements that define the mapping the auto-population feature to entity characteristics which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 7, 19
Claim 7, 19 merely recite other additional elements that define the features which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 8
Claim 8 merely recite other additional elements that define output information describing the access policy for the feature which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 10
Claim 10 merely recite other additional elements that define the ML model is configured to identify correlation between the usage of the feature with the characteristics of the entities which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 11
Claim 11 merely recite other additional elements that define modifying association between the characteristics of the entities and the feature which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 12
Claim 12 merely recite other additional elements that define modifying access to the feature based on the feature is accepted by the entity which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 10-11, 13-14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (Yang) US 2020/0314201
In regard to claim 1, Yang disclose A method comprising: ([0033] method)
identifying, by one or more processors, a first entity and a second entity associated with the first entity; ([0014]-[0028] [0034]-[0040] identify, the relationship between the entities by the processor)
applying, by the one or more processors, a trained machine learning model to a characteristic of at least one of the first entity or the second entity to identify one or more features within an online document system to recommend, ([0014]-[0021] [0026]-[0040] apply a machine learning model to a profile data of the entities to identify a digital resource within the system to recommend) wherein the machine learning model has been trained using feature training data describing one or more characteristics of a plurality of entities and describing historical activity associated with a usage of a plurality of features within the online document system by the plurality of entities; ([0014]-[0021] [0026]-[0040] [0048]-[0052] the model has learned as a result of analyzing a training set of profile data describing the characteristics of the entities, such as inquiries, etc. and describing the past interaction history associated with usage of the particular digital content, etc. in the system by the entities. Note: please further define features and characteristics to help move forward the prosecution, call to discuss if necessary) and
outputting, by the one or more processors, an indication of the one or more identified features to the first entity. ([0014]-[0021] [0033]-[0040][0048]-[0052] output, the digital content recommended to the entity represented by the member node)
In regard to claim 2, Yang disclose The method of claim 1,
Yang disclose wherein identifying the first entity and the second entity further comprises:
identifying the first entity and the second entity associated with the first entity based on activity history between the first entity and the second entity. ([0014]-[0021] [0026]-[0040] [0048]-[0052] identify the relationship between the entities based on the past interaction history between the entities)
In regard to claim 10, Yang disclose The method of claim 1,
Yang disclose wherein the machine learning model is configured to identify one or more correlations between usage of particular features and the one or more characteristics of the entities that use the particular features. ([0014]-[0021] [0026]-[0040] [0048]-[0052] the model identify the relationship between usage context (particular digital content) and particular past interaction history (frequencies of clicks, likes, etc.)) of the entities view or like, post, comments, etc. in relation to the particular digital content)
In regard to claim 11, Yang disclose The method of claim 1,
Yang disclose further comprising: modifying, by the one or more processors, in the machine learning model, based on an indication the first entity accepted or rejected a feature of the identified one or more features, an association between the one or more characteristics of the plurality of entities and the feature. ([0003]-[0004][0016]-[0021] [0040]-[0044] if the entity accepted the offered job, for example, the association of the entities and the offer is changed from the member entity’s connection graph)
In regard to claims 13-14, claims 13-14 are system claims corresponding to the method claims 1-2 above and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claims 1-2.
In regard to claim 20, claim 20 is a medium claim corresponding to the system claim 1 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-9, 12, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (Yang) US 2020/0314201 in view of Dotan-Cohen et al. (Dotan-Cohen) US 2019/0340554
In regard to claim 3, Yang disclose The method of claim 1,
But Yang fail to explicitly disclose “wherein outputting the indication of the one or more identified features further comprises: outputting an indication of a feature of the one or more identified features based on determining the feature is sponsored by at least a threshold number of entities.”
Dotan-Cohen disclose wherein outputting the indication of the one or more identified features further comprises: outputting an indication of a feature of the one or more identified features based on determining the feature is sponsored by at least a threshold number of entities. ([0005]-[0007] [0019]-[0021] [0144]-[0167] [0178]-[0191] output a content from the project based on the determining the content is sponsored by the entities with the sponsor role (with threshold number of users are selected based on search criteria)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Dotan-Cohen’s engagement levels and roles in projects into Yang’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of digital contents identification. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Dotan-Cohen’s engagement levels and roles in projects would help to provide more digital contents for the user to interact with to Yang’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing more digital contents for the user to interact would improve user experience using the device.
In regard to claim 4, Yang disclose The method of claim 1,
But Yang fail to explicitly disclose “wherein outputting the indication of the one or more identified features further comprises: sorting the one or more identified features by a number of entities currently sponsoring the one or more features that are recommended.”
Dotan-Cohen disclose wherein outputting the indication of the one or more identified features further comprises: sorting the one or more identified features by a number of entities currently sponsoring the one or more features that are recommended. ([0144]-[0167] [0178]-[0191] rank items by the users with the sponsor role based on the search)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Dotan-Cohen’s engagement levels and roles in projects into Yang’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of digital contents identification. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Dotan-Cohen’s engagement levels and roles in projects would help to provide more digital contents for the user to interact with to Yang’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing more digital contents for the user to interact would improve user experience using the device.
In regard to claim 5, Yang disclose The method of claim 1,
But Yang fail to explicitly disclose “wherein the one or more identified features comprise a premium document auto-population feature.”
Dotan-Cohen disclose wherein the one or more identified features comprise a premium document auto-population feature. ([0172] [0181]-[0182][0196][0197] the content provided by presentation component such as information populating a user interface to present the content, document)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Dotan-Cohen’s engagement levels and roles in projects into Yang’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of digital contents identification. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Dotan-Cohen’s engagement levels and roles in projects would help to provide more digital contents for the user to interact with to Yang’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing more digital contents for the user to interact would improve user experience using the device.
In regard to claim 6, Yang disclose The method of claim 5,
But Yang fail to explicitly disclose “wherein the machine learning model is configured to map the premium document auto-population feature to entity characteristics representative of one or more documents having one or more fields that may be auto-populated using the premium document auto-population feature.”
Dotan-Cohen disclose wherein the machine learning model is configured to map the premium document auto-population feature to entity characteristics representative of one or more documents having one or more fields that may be auto-populated using the premium document auto-population feature. ([0098]-[0100][0172] [0181]-[0182][0196][0197] the content provided by presentation component such as information populating a user interface to present the content, such as the document with fields and is corresponding to the entity characteristics (such as role, etc.) and mapping user’s roles to the document, etc. and to make the personalized content to be presented based on the user data associated with the user)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Dotan-Cohen’s engagement levels and roles in projects into Yang’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of digital contents identification. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Dotan-Cohen’s engagement levels and roles in projects would help to provide more digital contents for the user to interact with to Yang’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing more digital contents for the user to interact would improve user experience using the device.
In regard to claim 7, Yang disclose The method of claim 1,
But Yang fail to explicitly disclose “wherein at least one of the identified one or more features comprises a feature that the first entity has access to and the second entity associated with the first entity does not have access to.”
Dotan-Cohen disclose wherein at least one of the identified one or more features comprises a feature that the first entity has access to and the second entity associated with the first entity does not have access to. ([0183]-[0185] [0084] meeting manager can access the access calendar data and other user cannot access it based on the role or access particular content or a level of detail for the particular content based on the user roles)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Dotan-Cohen’s engagement levels and roles in projects into Yang’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of digital contents identification. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Dotan-Cohen’s engagement levels and roles in projects would help to provide more digital contents for the user to interact with to Yang’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing more digital contents for the user to interact would improve user experience using the device.
In regard to claim 8, Yang disclose The method of claim 1,
But Yang fail to explicitly disclose “further comprising: outputting information describing restrictions and/or requirements to access the one or more identified features.”
Dotan-Cohen disclose further comprising: outputting information describing restrictions and/or requirements to access the one or more identified features. ([0183]-[0185] [0084] access particular content or a level of detail for the particular content based on the user roles)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Dotan-Cohen’s engagement levels and roles in projects into Yang’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of digital contents identification. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Dotan-Cohen’s engagement levels and roles in projects would help to provide more digital contents for the user to interact with to Yang’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing more digital contents for the user to interact would improve user experience using the device.
In regard to claim 9, Yang disclose The method of claim 1,
But Yang fail to explicitly disclose “wherein outputting the indication of the one or more identified features further comprises: identifying at least one of: timing to provide to the identified entity the one or more identified features or a frequency with which to provide to the first entity the one or more identified features.”
Dotan-Cohen disclose wherein outputting the indication of the one or more identified features further comprises: identifying at least one of: timing to provide to the identified entity the one or more identified features or a frequency with which to provide to the first entity the one or more identified features. ([0172]-[0176] generate a summary of project and time over a user-specified time period for one or more particular roles)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Dotan-Cohen’s engagement levels and roles in projects into Yang’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of digital contents identification. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Dotan-Cohen’s engagement levels and roles in projects would help to provide more digital contents for the user to interact with to Yang’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing more digital contents for the user to interact would improve user experience using the device.
In regard to claim 12, Yang disclose The method of claim 1,
Yang disclose an indication the first entity accepted a feature of the identified one or more features. ([0003]-[0004][0016]-[0021] [0040]-[0044] the entity accepted the offered job, for example, here it discloses a condition)
Dotan-Cohen disclose further comprising: modifying, by the one or more processors, based on the indication the first entity accepted the feature of the identified one or more features, access in the online document system to a feature for the first entity. ([0183]-[0185] [0084] the role of the user is changed if the response of the user for the information provided is acceptance, access particular content or a level of detail for the particular content based on the user roles)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Dotan-Cohen’s engagement levels and roles in projects into Yang’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of digital contents identification. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Dotan-Cohen’s engagement levels and roles in projects would help to provide more digital contents for the user to interact with to Yang’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing more digital contents for the user to interact would improve user experience using the device.
In regard to claims 15-19, claims 15-19 are system claims corresponding to the method claims 3-7 above and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claims 3-7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
PATENT PUB. # PUB. DATE INVENTOR(S) TITLE
US 20190294658 A1 2019-09-26 Banerjee et al.
DOCUMENT PROCESSING AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
Banerjee et al. disclose A method and system including a data storage device to store document files, entity graph data structures, and data graph data structures; a processor to receive input values for parameters of a plurality of entities related to a document being authored; generate an entity graph data structure linking, directly or indirectly, the plurality of entities based on shared property commonalities between the plurality of entities; generate a data graph data structure based on the entity graph data structure and at least one of at least one existing document file, curated document terms, and relevant terms acceptable to the plurality of entities; and automatically generate, based on the data graph data structure, a self-awareness notification for the document being authored, the self-awareness notification indicating an action related to a continued authoring of the document being authored; and an output to output a user interface to display the generated notification in a notification interface area of a user interface… see abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUYANG XIA whose telephone number is (571)270-3045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Jennifer Welch can be reached at 571-272-7212. 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.
XUYANG XIA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2143
/XUYANG XIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2143
Prosecution Insights