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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 3/20/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 itis 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 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Claims 2-7 are drawn to an apparatus, claims 9-15 are drawn to an apparatus and claims 17-20 are drawn to a method, therefore each of these claim groups falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater; Step 1). Nonetheless, the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significant more (Step 2A, see below). Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are non-verbatim but similar in claim construction, hence share the same rationale that the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows:
As to claim 1:
“An apparatus to generate a persona for an entity, the apparatus comprising: a central server, the central server comprising: a server communication link; a server processor; an “N”-qubit processor; and a server non-transitory memory configured to store at least: a server operating system; and an AI/ML persona creation program executed on the server processor and the “N”-qubit processor; wherein the persona creation program: receives two or more traits of the entity’s digital behavior on a network; stores the two or more traits in the non-transitory memory; creates two or more quantum keys on the “N”-qubit processor based on the two or more traits; tracks the entity’s digital behavior on the network for a pre-determined length of time to receive one or more additional traits of the entity’s digital behavior; stores the one or more additional traits on the non-transitory memory; updates the two or more quantum keys with the one or more additional traits; and generates the persona for the entity, wherein the persona comprises the two or more quantum keys.”
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “creates two or more quantum keys on … based on the two or more traits” and “tracks the entity’s digital behavior on … for a pre-determined length of time to receive one or more additional traits of the entity’s digital behavior” are the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “AI/ML persona creation program” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “AI/ML persona creation program” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “central server”, “server communication link”, “server processor”, “N-qubit processor”, “a server non-transitory memory”, “server operating system”, and “a network” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, this limitation “receives two or more traits of the entity’s digital behavior on a network”, “stores the two or more traits in the non-transitory memory”, “stores the one or more additional traits on the non-transitory memory”, “updates the two or more quantum keys with the one or more additional traits”, “generates the persona for the entity, wherein the persona comprises the two or more quantum keys” amount to mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
This limitation “generates the persona for the entity, wherein the persona comprises the two or more quantum keys” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
No, this limitation “AI/ML persona creation program” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “AI/ML persona creation program” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “central server”, “server communication link”, “server processor”, “N-qubit processor”, “a server non-transitory memory”, “server operating system”, and “a network” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, this limitation “receives two or more traits of the entity’s digital behavior on a network”, “stores the two or more traits in the non-transitory memory”, “stores the one or more additional traits on the non-transitory memory”, “updates the two or more quantum keys with the one or more additional traits”, “generates the persona for the entity, wherein the persona comprises the two or more quantum keys” amount to mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
This limitation “generates the persona for the entity, wherein the persona comprises the two or more quantum keys” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
Furthermore, regarding dependent claims 2-7 which are dependent on claim 1, claims 9-14 which are dependent on claim 8, and claims 16-20 which are dependent on claim 15, the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more as highlighted below in the claim limitations by evaluating the claim limitations under Step 2A and 2B:
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20
Incorporates the rejection of independent claims
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “each quantum key comprises one or more multi-possibility variable”, “each quantum key is encrypted”, “the persona is encrypted”, “a user interacts with the persona for the entity”, “the interaction is analyzed”, “step of training the persona at least on responses from a user interacting with the persona” are the abstract ideas of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No, this limitation “internet”, “internal intranet”, “the server is centralized” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2). Further, This limitation “visual avatar”, “avatar”, “a user interacts with the persona by using an augmented reality/virtual reality (“AR/VR”) computing device”, “the user interacts with the persona in a metaverse” are additional elements that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). this limitation “the interaction is transmitted to…” =, “the persona creation program updates the persona based on the analysis”, “the persona creation program updates the persona in real-time based on the analysis”, “a user begins an interaction with the persona by transmitting a communication request to the entity” amount to mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No, this limitation “internet”, “internal intranet”, “the server is centralized” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2). Further, This limitation “visual avatar”, “avatar”, “a user interacts with the persona by using an augmented reality/virtual reality (“AR/VR”) computing device”, “the user interacts with the persona in a metaverse” are additional elements that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). this limitation “the interaction is transmitted to…” =, “the persona creation program updates the persona based on the analysis”, “the persona creation program updates the persona in real-time based on the analysis”, “a user begins an interaction with the persona by transmitting a communication request to the entity” amount to mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
The dependent claims as analyzed above, do not recite limitations that integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. In addition, the claim limitations do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). Therefore, the claims do not recite any limitations, when considered individually or as a whole, that recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more”, see MPEP 2106.05; and therefore, as a whole the claims are not patent eligible.
As shown above, the dependent claims do not provide any additional elements that when considered individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified. Therefore, as a whole the dependent claims do not recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite, when claim elements are examined individually and as a whole, elements that the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Examiner’s Note:
The following terms are broadly defined in the Specification:
“Entity” is defined in [0006] of the Specification as “An entity may be any company, government agency, or other structured entity.” Under BRI, “entity” can be any organization and/or individuals.
“Personas” is defined in [0006] of the Specification as “Personas representing an entity may be provided with various rules or factors to follow when interacting with a user.” Under BRI, persona can be characteristics of the entity.
“quantum keys” is defined in [0062] of the Specification as “The persona creation program may create two or more quantum keys on the “N”-qubit processor based on the two or more traits. In an embodiment, one quantum key may be correlated with one trait.” Under BRI, quantum key can be a quantum profile.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US 20240050003 A1).
Referring to claim 1, Day discloses an apparatus to generate a persona for an entity, the apparatus comprising: a central server, the central server comprising: a server communication link; a server processor; an “N”-qubit processor; and a server non-transitory memory configured to store at least: a server operating system; and an AI/ML persona creation program executed on the server processor and the “N”-qubit processor; ([0132] of Day and Fig. 3) wherein the persona creation program:
receives two or more traits of the entity’s digital behavior on a network; ([0124] of Day, the avatar/entity in the metaverse that is interacting with the user. Even though Day does not specifically disclose having two or more traits, but a person of ordinary skills in the art would have understand it is obvious to try with more than one with expected results that there can be two or more traits instead of just one trait associated with the behavior/interaction for the purpose of data gathering for a more accurate analysis)
stores the two or more traits in the non-transitory memory; ([0042] of Day, storing user answers in memory/database.)
creates two or more quantum keys on the “N”-qubit processor based on the two or more traits; ([0124] of Day, creating digitally, different avatars/agents)
tracks the entity’s digital behavior on the network for a pre-determined length of time to receive one or more additional traits of the entity’s digital behavior; ([0126] of Day, “The color-coded and color de-coded data may include morphing aspects and human characteristics collected/derived from a plurality of users and relating to one or more personas/agents, events, time periods, and/or conversational scenarios. This conversational data may include conversational algorithms/models for processing with the biometric sensors 208 and the morphing aspects of the avatar/agent, included in conversational data. In examples, the conversational data may be collected from the Metaverse, and stored in, for example, a Metaverse chat index. The Metaverse chat index may include Metaverse users' perceptions, opinions and knowledge, their intention, emotions, thoughts, feelings, etc. regarding the actions, communications and/or events relating to one or more specific avatars/agents, a period of time, or one or more events.”)
stores the one or more additional traits on the non-transitory memory; ([0042] of Day, storing in memory/database)
updates the two or more quantum keys with the one or more additional traits; ([0125] of Day, “The scoring or comparison algorithm/model may use the generated scores/labels to determine a similarity score or metric for any form of avatar/entity. The similarity score/metric may represent the estimated similarity between a specific avatar/entity and the other person/entity. In aspects, the processed personalized data may be used to create, organize, populate or update a personalized persona index for the avatar/agent identified in the request.”) and
generates the persona for the entity, wherein the persona comprises the two or more quantum keys. ([0150] of Day, “The personas that can be modified to obscure, enhance or reflect a virtual agent can be any person, place, object, real or imagined and is not limited to just a human representation. The format of the persona, avatar, or virtual agent is also expansive in that the features are contained in colors, resonance, or even exist as an intuition or inner voice with no appearance (cloaked, with minimal virtual representation). Texture, size or other features are also not to be limited to what we commonly know as human. The embodiment of human characteristics is also not limited to intuition amplification, addition of a stress response system SRS, or better known as the fight or flight response but can extend to emotive or cognitive expression in a non-verbal form. Intent, another feature that makes humans human, is also embodied in the virtual agent along with creative decision-making. Experience between the virtual agent and the local user can be shared through haptic transmission and/or any other systems and methods, creating a “dual, simultaneous experience.”)
Referring to claim 2, Day discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the network is the Internet. ([0131] of Day)
Referring to claim 3, Day discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the network is an internal intranet. ([0131] of Day)
Referring to claim 7, Day discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the persona comprises a visual avatar. ([0125] of Day)
Referring to claim 8, Day discloses an apparatus to create a persona for an entity, the apparatus comprising: a central server, the central server comprising: a server communication link; a server processor; an “N”-qubit processor; and a server non-transitory memory configured to store at least: a server operating system; and an AI/ML persona creation program executed on the server processor and the “N”-qubit processor; wherein the persona creation program: receives two or more traits of the entity’s digital behavior on a network; stores the two or more traits in the non-transitory memory; creates two or more quantum keys on the “N”-qubit processor based on the two or more traits, wherein one quantum key is associated with one trait; tracks the entity’s digital behavior on the network for a pre-determined length of time to receive one or more additional traits of the entity’s digital behavior; stores the one or more additional traits on the non-transitory memory; creates an additional quantum key for each of the one or more additional traits; and creates the persona for the entity, wherein the persona comprises: the two or more quantum keys; the two or more traits; the one or more additional traits; and each additional quantum key. (see citations of claim 1)
Referring to claim 9, Day discloses the apparatus of claim 8 wherein the persona comprises an avatar. ([0125] of Day)
Referring to claim 10, Day discloses the apparatus of claim 8 wherein when a user interacts with the persona for the entity, the interaction is transmitted to the central server. ([0132] of Day and Fig. 3)
Referring to claim 11, Day discloses the apparatus of claim 10 wherein the interaction is analyzed by the persona creation program. ([0124]-[0126] of Day)
Referring to claim 12, Day discloses the apparatus of claim 11 wherein the persona creation program updates the persona based on the analysis. ([0124]-[0126] of Day)
Referring to claim 13, Day discloses the apparatus of claim 11 wherein the persona creation program updates the persona in real-time based on the analysis. ([0124]-[0126] of Day)
Referring to claim 14, Day discloses the apparatus of claim 8 wherein a user begins an interaction with the persona by transmitting a communication request to the entity. ([0124]-[0126] of Day)
Referring to claim 15, Day discloses the apparatus of claim 8 wherein a user interacts with the persona by using an augmented reality/virtual reality (“AR/VR”) computing device. ([0134] of Day)
Referring to claim 16, Day discloses a method for creating a persona for an entity, the method comprising: receiving, at an AI/ML persona creation program executed on a server comprising a microprocessor and an “N”-qubit quantum processor, two or more traits of the entity’s digital behavior on a network; storing the two or more traits in non-transitory memory on the server; creating two or more quantum keys on the “N”-qubit processor based on the two or more traits, wherein one quantum key is associated with one trait; tracking the entity’s digital behavior on the network for a pre-determined length of time to receive one or more additional traits of the entity’s digital behavior; storing the one or more additional traits on the non-transitory memory; creating an additional quantum key for each of the one or more additional traits; and creating the persona for the entity; wherein the persona comprises: the two or more quantum keys; the two or more traits; the one or more additional traits; and each additional quantum key. (see citations of claim 1)
Referring to claim 17, Day discloses the method of claim 16 wherein the server is centralized. ([0134] of Day)
Referring to claim 18, Day discloses the method of claim 16 wherein the network is the Internet. ([0134] of Day)
Referring to claim 19, Day discloses the method of claim 16 further comprising the step of training the persona at least on responses from a user interacting with the persona. ([0126] of Day, a plurality of users and related to one or more personas/agents, etc.. where the agents can be avatars that the user is communicating with)
Referring to claim 20, Day discloses the method of claim 19 wherein the user interacts with the persona in a metaverse. ([0125] of Day)
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US 20240050003 A1) in view of Guinn et al (US 20240412030 A1).
Referring to claim 4, Day discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Day does not specifically disclose wherein each quantum key comprises one or more multi-possibility variable.
However, Guinn discloses each quantum key comprises one or more multi-possibility variable ([0107] of Guinn, “variable updates may include any variables that need to be updated, such as” {AI persona goals}+=learn about the user's favorite food. Furthermore, an action may be any external applications or logic that should be executed. This may include something like an API call that sends an email to a user a day later with a link to a sushi recipe.”)
Day and Guinn are analogous art because both references concern learning about digital persona. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Day’s digital profile/keys with AI persona with different variables as taught by Guinn. The motivation for doing so would have been to dynamically associated persona with multiple traits of the user’s interaction with the online system.
Referring to claim 5, Day discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Day does not specifically disclose wherein each quantum key is encrypted.
However, Guinn discloses e each quantum key is encrypted ([0091] of Guinn)
Day and Guinn are analogous art because both references concern learning about digital persona. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Day’s digital profile/keys with encryption associated with the user data as taught by Guinn. The motivation for doing so would have been to protect user data.
Referring to claim 6, Day discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Day does not specifically disclose wherein the persona is encrypted.
However, Guinn discloses the persona is encrypted ([0091] of Guinn)
Day and Guinn are analogous art because both references concern learning about digital persona. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Day’s digital profile/keys with encryption associated with the user data as taught by Guinn. The motivation for doing so would have been to protect user data.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Udupa et al (US 20230039338 A1): systems, non-transitory computer-readable media, and methods that utilize a specially trained machine-learning model to generate an emerging user segment based on a target outcome for digital survey responses and respondent attributes of respondents to such digital surveys. In some cases, for instance, the emerging user segment includes a group of users that share the same or similar characteristics as the subset of respondents. By analyzing respondent attributes of digital survey respondents that match a target outcome, the disclosed systems can use the specially trained machine-learning model to dynamically predict users that likely have (or are at risk of having) the same or a similar target outcome—even if such users did not respond to the relevant digital survey.
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://;www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e- mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIMEI JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at 571-270-1006. 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.
/HAIMEI JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights