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 INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (FP 7.30.03)
(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.
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
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:
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;
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
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. (FP 7.30.05)
This application includes one or more 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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: means for … in claim 23.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. (FP 7.30.06)
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 1-30 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 1-11, 12-22, 23-29, 30 are directed to a system, method and system, medium of generative AI models. 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, 12, 23 and 30
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 disclosed as a human user performing these functions, simply using a computer as a tool-see spec, [0025-0036], Fig. 1. 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, 12, 23, 30 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, 12, 23 and 30: 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).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “receive…”, “generate…”, “output…”, “receive…” and “output…”. 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, 13, 24
Claim 2, 13, 24 merely recite other additional elements that define activating the AI model based on a query 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, 14, 25
Claim 3, 14, 25 merely recite other additional elements that define generating the prompt based on contextual data associated with the inputs 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, 5, 15, 16, 26
Claim 4, 5, 15, 16, 26 merely recite other additional elements that define generating the output based on the contextual data associated with the inputs into the AI model 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, 17, 27
Claim 6, 17, 27 merely recite other additional elements that defining multi-modal contextual data 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, 18, 28
Claim 7, 18, 28 merely recite other additional elements that identifying a model from models and output the generated prompt using the identified model contextual data 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, 19
Claim 8, 19 merely recite other additional elements that generate response and evaluate and based on a threshold is not met, using a second AI model 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 9, 10, 20, 21
Claim 9, 10, 20, 21 merely recite other additional elements that defining the first and second AI models 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, 22, 29
Claim 11, 22, 29 merely recite other additional elements that estimating a complexity of a task and select a model based on the complexity and generate output using the model 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 1-7, 12-18, 23-28, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Singh et al. (Singh) US 2024/0296316.
In regard to claim 1, Singh disclose A processing system, comprising: ([0004] system)
at least one memory having executable instructions stored thereon; and one or more processors configured to execute the executable instructions in order to cause the processing system to: ([0004] [0030]-[0033] [0115]-[0119] memory, processors and instructions)
receive an input for processing; ([0004][0032] receive an input)
generate a prompt representing the received input based on the received input, contextual information associated with the received input, and a prompt-generating artificial intelligence model; ([0004][0032]-[0046] [0071]-[0076] [0105] generate a prompt based on the received input and context information about particular user, etc. and a generative AI model)
output the generated prompt to a generative artificial intelligence model for processing; ([0004][0032]-[0046] output the generated prompt to the generative AI model)
receive, from the generative artificial intelligence model, a response to the generated prompt; ([0004][0032]-[0046] receive, from the generate AI model a response from the prompt) and
output the received response as a response to the received input. ([0004][0032]-[0040] output the received response to the user interface as a response)
In regard to claim 2, Singh disclose The processing system of Claim 1,
Singh disclose wherein:
to receive the input for processing, the one or more processors are configured to cause the processing system to detect input of a query from a user of a computing device; ([0004][0032]-[0040] [0084]-[0088] detect user interaction, such as a request from a user of a client device) and the one or more processors are further configured to cause the processing system to activate the prompt-generating artificial intelligence model based on detecting the input of the query. ([0084]-[0088] actuate the generative AI model based on the detecting the input request)
In regard to claim 3, Singh disclose The processing system of Claim 1,
Singh disclose wherein the prompt-generating artificial intelligence model comprises a model that generates the prompt based further on multi-modal contextual data associated with one or more sensor inputs captured in association with receiving the input for processing. ([0004][0032]-[0046] [0071]-[0076][0105] generate the prompt based on context information such as touch input, or speech commands, etc. associated with sensor input captured and associated with the received input)
In regard to claim 4, Singh disclose The processing system of Claim 3,
Singh disclose wherein to generate the prompt representing the received input, ([0004][0032]-[0046] [0071]-[0076] generate the prompt based on the received input) the one or more processors are configured to cause the processing system to generate a textual output based on the multi-modal contextual data input into the prompt-generating artificial intelligence model. ([0004][0032]-[0046] generate the textual output based on the context data input (text generation) into the generative AI model)
In regard to claim 5, Singh disclose The processing system of Claim 3,
Singh disclose wherein to generate the prompt representing the received input, the one or more processors are configured to cause the processing system to generate a set of multi-modal features based on the multi-modal contextual data input into the prompt-generating artificial intelligence model. ([0025]-[0026] [0032]-[0047] [0052]-[0058] [0069] [0073]-[0076] [0084]-[0088] based on the context data input into the generative AI model, metadata can be captured corresponding to the input to the AI model such as latency, performance, etc. evaluation metrics generated)
In regard to claim 6, Singh and Zatloukai disclose The processing system of Claim 3,
Singh disclose wherein the multi-modal contextual data comprises one or more of audio data, image data, or motion data captured while receiving the input for processing. ([0004][0032]-[0047] [0073] [0105] [0120] receive such as speech command, video interface to receive video, etc. while receiving the input request)
In regard to claim 7, Singh disclose The processing system of Claim 1,
Singh disclose wherein to output the generated prompt to the generative artificial intelligence model, the one or more processors are configured to cause the processing system to: ([0004][0032]-[0046] output the generated prompt to the generative AI model)
identify a model from a plurality of generative models deployed in a distributed computing environment for processing the generated prompt; ([0044]-[0046] [0077] [0108]-[0112] [0121]-[0122] identify a target model from the models and the models can be deployed in remote servers) and
output the generated prompt to the identified model from the plurality of generative models. ([0004][0032]-[0046] output the generated prompt to the target generative AI model among the models)
In regard to claims 12-18, claims 12-18 are method claims corresponding to the system claims 1-7 above and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claims 1-7.
In regard to claims 23-28, claims 23-28 are system claims corresponding to the system claims 1-3, 4+5, 6-7 above and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claims 1-3, 4+5, 6-7.
In regard to claim 30, claim 30 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8-11, 19-22, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (Singh) US 2024/0296316 in view of Chandrasekaran et al. (Chandrasekaran) US 2021/0406763
In regard to claim 8, Singh disclose The processing system of Claim 1,
Singh disclose wherein to output the generated prompt to the generative artificial intelligence model, the one or more processors are configured to: ([0004][0032]-[0046] output the generated prompt to the generative AI model)
generate an initial response based on a first generative artificial intelligence model; ([0004][0032]-[0046] [0056]-[0058] output the received response to the user interface as a response from the AI model)
evaluate a quality of the initial response; ([0056]-[0058][0068] evaluate the performance of the response) and
based on a determination that the quality of the initial response does not meet, output the generated prompt to a second generative artificial intelligence model for processing, ([0056]-[0058][0068] evaluate the performance of the response, based on the performance metrics’ comparison, the user can determine when to switch the model to a different generative AI model to receive the prompt, the value of the performance metrics can be determined by the user)
wherein the second generative artificial intelligence model is remote from the first generative artificial intelligence model. ([0044]-[0046] [0077] [0108]-[0112] [0121]-[0122] the models can be deployed in remote servers)
But Singh fail to explicitly disclose “the determination that the quality of the initial response does not meet a threshold quality metric,”
Chandrasekaran disclose the determination that the quality of the initial response does not meet a threshold quality metric, ([0002]-[0003][0051]-[0060] [0068]-[0072] replace the model based on the performance metric falls short a specified performance metric threshold)
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 Chandrasekaran‘s optimizing learning models into Singh’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of learning models. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Chandrasekaran‘s switching models based on performance metrics would help to provide model control mechanism into Singh’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 model switching based on performance metrics would help to optimize the model used and therefore improve user experience using the system.
In regard to claim 9, Singh and Chandrasekaran disclose The processing system of Claim 8,
But Singh fail to explicitly disclose “wherein the first generative artificial intelligence model comprises a model deployed on a same device as a device on which the input is received.”
Chandrasekaran disclose wherein the first generative artificial intelligence model comprises a model deployed on a same device as a device on which the input is received. ([0018] [0027]-[0031] [0044] the model deployed on the client device which the input is received)
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 Chandrasekaran‘s optimizing learning models into Singh’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of learning models. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Chandrasekaran‘s models deployed on the client device would help to provide model control mechanism into Singh’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 deploying model on the client device would improve user experience using the system.
In regard to claim 10, Singh and Chandrasekaran disclose The processing system of Claim 9,
Singh disclose wherein the second generative artificial intelligence model comprises a model deployed on a device remote from a device on which the first generative artificial intelligence model is deployed. ([0044]-[0046] [0077] [0108]-[0112] [0121]-[0122] the models can be deployed in multiple remote servers)
In regard to claim 11, Singh and Chandrasekaran disclose The processing system of Claim 8,
Singh disclose wherein to output the generated prompt to the remote generative artificial intelligence model, the one or more processors are configured to cause the processing system to: ([0004][0032]-[0046] [0077] [0108]-[0112] [0121]-[0122] output the generated prompt to the generative AI model and the AI model can be deployed remotely)
estimate a complexity of a task associated with the generated prompt; ([0022]-[0026][0040]-[0046] [0056]-[0058] evaluate the task corresponding to the generated prompt need to take a large amount of computer processing overhead and time or few computer processing resources, etc.)
select a model from a plurality of generative models to which the generated prompt is to be output based on the estimated complexity; ([0022]-[0026][0040]-[0046] [0056]-[0058][0068] select the model based on the performance metrics, such as time, latency, overhead, resources, etc. the user can determine when to switch the model to a different generative AI model) and
output the generated prompt to the selected model from the plurality of generative models. ([0004][0032]-[0046] output the generated prompt to the target generative AI model among the models)
In regard to claims 19-22, claims 19-22 are method claims corresponding to the system claims 8-11 above and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claims 8-11.
In regard to claim 29, claim 29 is a system claim corresponding to the system claim 11 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Documents PATENT DATE INVENTOR(S) TITLE
US 20210281592 A1 2021-09-09 Givental et al.
Hybrid Machine Learning To Detect Anomalies
Givental et al. disclose Mechanisms are provided to implement a hybrid machine learning (ML) anomaly detector comprising an ensemble of unsupervised ML models and a semi-supervised ML model. The ensemble of unsupervised ML models are executed on log data to generate, for each entry in the log data, a predicted anomaly score and corresponding anomaly classification label of the entry. A partially labeled dataset is generated based on a selected subset of entries and other unlabeled log data in the log data. A similarity analysis of the unlabeled log data with entries in the selected subset of entries is performed and anomaly classification labels of the selected subset of entries are propagated to the other unlabeled log data based on the similarity analysis… 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