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 .
Claims status
Claims 1-20 are pending as the applicant filed response on 04/12/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-20, the terms “satisfies“ “similarity” “unanticipated” are vague and a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The terms “satisfies“ “similarity” “unanticipated” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised of the scope of the invention. An artisan doing measuring and testing would not know at what point “satisfies“ “similarity” “unanticipated” within the scope of the claim had been accomplished because nothing within the disclosure establishes when a sufficient “satisfies“ “similarity” “unanticipated” occur.
Note: In view of the PTO compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that due to the indefiniteness issues described above all consideration of the merits of the claims in view of prior art is as best understood.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of a related Application No. 17/186,040 now US Patent 11,994,971. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims in the current application are encompassed in the previous application. The latter pending application encompasses the same process as the pending application and is a different version of the previous application because of rearrangement of the claims language.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a computer-implemented method, comprising: comparing a first change in the at least one performance metric value resulting from a service modification event for the first online service and a second change in the at least one performance metric value resulting from a previous occurrence of the service modification event for the second online service; determining that the service modification event is associated with an unanticipated performance change for the first online service based on the comparing; and executing corrective actions to disable one or more features of the first online service for undoing the service modification event appears is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? the additional elements of obtaining, by a server, a value of at least one performance metric associated with a first online service based on tracking user interactions with the first online service are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application,
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? the additional elements of identifying, by the server, a second online service that satisfies a service similarity criterion relative to the first online service appears to be field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or merely amounts to insignificant extra-solution output of the results (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Step 2B: No. claim 1 not eligible.
Claim 15, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a computing system, comprising: compare a first change in the at least one performance metric value resulting from a service modification event for the first online service and a second change in the at least one performance metric value resulting from a previous occurrence of the service modification event for the second online service; determine that the service modification event is associated with an unanticipated performance change for the first online service based on the comparing; and execute corrective actions to disable one or more features of the first online service for undoing the service modification event appears is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? the additional elements of a processor; a memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, are to cause the processor to: obtain a value of at least one performance metric associated with a first online service based on tracking user interactions with the first online service are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application,
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? the additional elements of identify a second online service that satisfies a service similarity criterion relative to the first online service appears to be field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or merely amounts to insignificant extra-solution output of the results (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Step 2B: No. claim 15 not eligible.
Claim 19, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, are to cause the processor to: compare a first change in the at least one performance metric value resulting from a service modification event for the first online service and a second change in the at least one performance metric value resulting from a previous occurrence of the service modification event for the second online service; determine that the service modification event is associated with an unanticipated performance change for the first online service based on the comparing; and execute corrective actions to disable one or more features of the first online service for undoing the service modification event appears is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? the additional elements of obtain a value of at least one performance metric associated with a first online service based on tracking user interactions with the first online service are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application,
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? the additional elements of identify a second online service that satisfies a service similarity criterion relative to the first online service appears to be field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or merely amounts to insignificant extra-solution output of the results (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Step 2B: No. claim 19 not eligible.
Claim 2 related to detecting a change in performance of the first online service based on the obtained value of the at least one performance metric, wherein the second online service is identified responsive to detecting the change in performance of the first online service, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 2 not eligible.
Claim 3 related to executing the corrective actions comprises at least one of: uninstalling a plugin for the first online service; or reverting to a previous theme associated with the first online service, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 3 not eligible.
Claim 4 related to wherein the corrective actions are ranked according to impact on undoing effects of the service modification event for the first online service and wherein the corrective actions are sequentially executed based on their respective ranks, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 4 not eligible.
Claim 5 related to the service modification event comprises one of: installation of a plugin for the first online service; updating to a new version of a plugin that is installed for the first online service; changing a current theme associated with the first online service; or modifying source code for a current theme, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 5 not eligible.
Claim 6 related to identifying the second online service comprises: computing a similarity score for the second online service, the similarity score indicating similarity of the second online service to the first online service; and determining that the similarity score for the second online service exceeds a defined threshold, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 6 not eligible.
Claim 7 related to the similarity score for the second online service is computed based on comparing service data associated with the first and second online services, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 7 not eligible.
Claim 8 related to identifying one or more third online services that are different from the second online service; and comparing changes in the value of the at least one performance metric resulting from the service modification event for the first online service and for the one or more third online services, wherein the service modification event is determined to be associated with the unanticipated performance change for the first online service based on comparisons using data for the second online service and the one or more third online services, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 8 not eligible.
Claim 9 related to wherein identifying the second online service comprises identifying a service that is similar to the first online service based on a first similarity criterion and wherein identifying the one or more third online services comprises identifying services that are similar to the first online service based on criteria different from the first similarity criterion, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 9 not eligible.
Claim 10 related to wherein determining that the service modification event is associated with the unanticipated performance change for the first online service comprises determining that a difference between an amount of change in the value of the at least one performance metric resulting from the service modification event for the first online service and an amount of change in value of the same at least one performance metric resulting from the service modification event for the second online service exceeds a defined threshold, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 10 not eligible.
Claim 11 related to wherein determining that the service modification event is associated with the unanticipated performance change for the first online service comprises determining that an amount of change in the value of the at least one performance metric exceeds a defined threshold, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 11 not eligible.
Claim 12 related to determining that the service modification event is associated with the unanticipated performance change for the first online service comprises determining that the service modification event occurred for the first online service either within a defined time window prior to detecting the performance change or since a last measurement of the value of the at least one performance metric, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 12 not eligible.
Claim 13 related to providing an indication identifying the service modification event as being associated with the unanticipated performance change for the first online service, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 13 not eligible.
Claim 14 related to : identifying, based on the comparing, at least one service setting for the first online service that, in combination with the service modification event, is associated with the unanticipated performance change for the first online service, wherein the indication identifies the service modification event and the at least one service setting as being associated with the unanticipated performance change for the first online service.
, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 14 not eligible.
Claim 16 related to the service modification event comprises one of: installation of a plugin for the first online service; updating to a new version of a plugin that is installed for the first online service; changing a current theme associated with the first online service; or modifying source code for a current theme, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 16 not eligible.
Claim 17 related to identifying the second online service comprises: computing a similarity score for the second online service, the similarity score indicating similarity of the second online service to the first online service; and determining that the similarity score for the second online service exceeds a defined threshold, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 17 not eligible.
Claim 18 related to the instructions, when executed by the processor, are to cause the processor to: identify one or more third online services that are different from the second online service; compare changes in the value of the at least one performance metric resulting from the service modification event for the first online service and for the one or more third online services, wherein the service modification event is determined to be associated with the unanticipated performance change for the first online service based on comparisons using data for the second online service and the one or more third online services, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 18 not eligible.
Claim 20 related to the similarity score for the second online service is computed based on comparing service data associated with the first and second online services, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 20 not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Ford (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0041296 A1, Date Published: 2017-02-09).
Regarding claim 1:
Ford described a computer-implemented method, comprising:
obtaining, by a server, a value of at least one performance metric associated with a first online service based on tracking user interactions with the first online service (0010, 0203, server online);
identifying, by the server, a second online service that satisfies a service similarity criterion relative to the first online service (0156, real-time time manner);
comparing a first change in the at least one performance metric value resulting from a service modification event for the first online service and a second change in the at least one performance metric value resulting from a previous occurrence of the service modification event for the second online service (0173, comparison of attributes relating to the individual or role, compare various attributes);
determining that the service modification event is associated with an unanticipated performance change for the first online service based on the comparing (0207, performance analysis, predictive analytics, task productivity optimization, , 0242, performance can change); and
executing corrective actions to disable one or more features of the first online service for undoing the service modification event (0220, users in the exchange may be informed when a retraction, correction, or redaction is executed).
Regarding claim 15:
Ford described a computing system, comprising:
a processor; a memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, are to cause the processor to (0073, computer):
obtain a value of at least one performance metric associated with a first online service based on tracking user interactions with the first online service;
identify a second online service that satisfies a service similarity criterion relative to the first online service (0010, 0203, server online, 0156, real-time time manner, 0207, performance analysis, predictive analytics, task productivity optimization);
compare a first change in the at least one performance metric value resulting from a service modification event for the first online service and a second change in the at least one performance metric value resulting from a previous occurrence of the service modification event for the second online service (0173, comparison of attributes relating to the individual or role, compare various attributes);
determine that the service modification event is associated with an unanticipated performance change for the first online service based on the comparing (0173, comparison of attributes relating to the individual or role, compare various attributes, 0242, performance can change); and execute corrective actions to disable one or more features of the first online service for undoing the service modification event (0220, users in the exchange may be informed when a retraction, correction, or redaction is executed).
Regarding claim 19:
Ford described a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, are to cause the processor to (0073, computer):
obtain a value of at least one performance metric associated with a first online service based on tracking user interactions with the first online service;
identify a second online service that satisfies a service similarity criterion relative to the first online service (0010, 0203, server online, 0156, real-time time manner, 0207, performance analysis, predictive analytics, task productivity optimization);
compare a first change in the at least one performance metric value resulting from a service modification event for the first online service and a second change in the at least one performance metric value resulting from a previous occurrence of the service modification event for the second online service (0173, comparison of attributes relating to the individual or role, compare various attributes, 0242, performance can change);
determine that the service modification event is associated with an unanticipated performance change for the first online service based on the comparing; and
execute corrective actions to disable one or more features of the first online service for undoing the service modification event (0220, users in the exchange may be informed when a retraction, correction, or redaction is executed).
Regarding claim 2, Ford further described detecting a change in performance of the first online service based on the obtained value of the at least one performance metric, wherein the second online service is identified responsive to detecting the change in performance of the first online service (0220, users in the exchange may be informed when a retraction, correction, or redaction is executed).
Regarding claim 3, Ford further described uninstalling a plugin for the first online service; or reverting to a previous theme associated with the first online service (0220, retract, correct, or redact questions and/or answers as part of the exchange).
Regarding claim 4, Ford further described the corrective actions are ranked according to impact on undoing effects of the service modification event for the first online service (0382, policy set ranking) and wherein the corrective actions are sequentially executed based on their respective ranks (0095, The service manager module may provide an update of services for the secure exchange system in a rolling, tiered, iterative, and/or sequential manner).
Regarding claim 5, Ford further described wherein the service modification event comprises one of: installation of a plugin for the first online service (0209, support plugins, 0266, A plug-in to an application that is being used to interact with the content can accomplish blocking the operating system calls ); updating to a new version of a plugin that is installed for the first online service; changing a current theme associated with the first online service; or modifying source code for a current theme.
Regarding claim 6, Ford further described computing a similarity score for the second online service, the similarity score indicating similarity of the second online service to the first online service; and determining that the similarity score for the second online service exceeds a defined threshold (0299, The investor portal may allow for permissioning in a similar way as in an exchange or through the dashboard as described herein).
Regarding claim 7, Ford further described the similarity score for the second online service is computed based on comparing service data associated with the first and second online services (0299, The investor portal may allow for permissioning in a similar way as in an exchange or through the dashboard as described herein).
Regarding claim 8, Ford further described identifying one or more third online services that are different from the second online service (0323, The clinical trial management facility provides a secure, online repository that can ease the study start up process, enabling centralized collaboration for documents and communication); and comparing changes in the value of the at least one performance metric resulting from the service modification event for the first online service and for the one or more third online services, wherein the service modification event is determined to be associated with the unanticipated performance change for the first online service based on comparisons using data for the second online service and the one or more third online services (0544, determine which workflow description is being executed by the current workflow instance, compare the event history of a workflow instance with its corresponding workflow description).
Regarding claim 9, Ford further described identifying a service that is similar to the first online service based on a first similarity criterion and wherein identifying the one or more third online services comprises identifying services that are similar to the first online service based on criteria different from the first similarity criterion services (0544, determine which workflow description is being executed by the current workflow instance, compare the event history of a workflow instance with its corresponding workflow description).
Regarding claim 10, Ford further described determining that the service modification event is associated with the unanticipated performance change for the first online service comprises determining that a difference between an amount of change in the value of the at least one performance metric resulting from the service modification event for the first online service and an amount of change in value of the same at least one performance metric resulting from the service modification event for the second online service exceeds a defined threshold (0140, A funds widget may provide for selection of a fund, providing overview and performance information, and the like. There may also be sub-widgets that provide further functionality to a widget. The user may also have multiple dashboards, such as for different exchanges, different markets, different deals, and the like. One dashboard may handle information that is available to other users, and another dashboard may handle all personal files that are both available and unavailable to other users).
Regarding claim 11, Ford further described wherein determining that the service modification event is associated with the unanticipated performance change for the first online service comprises determining that an amount of change in the value of the at least one performance metric exceeds a defined threshold (0140, A funds widget may provide for selection of a fund, providing overview and performance information, and the like. There may also be sub-widgets that provide further functionality to a widget. The user may also have multiple dashboards, such as for different exchanges, different markets, different deals, and the like. One dashboard may handle information that is available to other users, and another dashboard may handle all personal files that are both available and unavailable to other users).
Regarding claim 12, Ford further described determining that the service modification event is associated with the unanticipated performance change for the first online service comprises determining that the service modification event occurred for the first online service either within a defined time window prior to detecting the performance change or since a last measurement of the value of the at least one performance metric (0140, A funds widget may provide for selection of a fund, providing overview and performance information, and the like. There may also be sub-widgets that provide further functionality to a widget. The user may also have multiple dashboards, such as for different exchanges, different markets, different deals, and the like. One dashboard may handle information that is available to other users, and another dashboard may handle all personal files that are both available and unavailable to other users).
Regarding claim 13, Ford further described providing an indication identifying the service modification event as being associated with the unanticipated performance change for the first online service (0140, A funds widget may provide for selection of a fund, providing overview and performance information, and the like. There may also be sub-widgets that provide further functionality to a widget. The user may also have multiple dashboards, such as for different exchanges, different markets, different deals, and the like. One dashboard may handle information that is available to other users, and another dashboard may handle all personal files that are both available and unavailable to other users).
Regarding claim 14, Ford further described identifying, based on the comparing, at least one service setting for the first online service that, in combination with the service modification event, is associated with the unanticipated performance change for the first online service, wherein the indication identifies the service modification event and the at least one service setting as being associated with the unanticipated performance change for the first online service (0140, A funds widget may provide for selection of a fund, providing overview and performance information, and the like. There may also be sub-widgets that provide further functionality to a widget. The user may also have multiple dashboards, such as for different exchanges, different markets, different deals, and the like. One dashboard may handle information that is available to other users, and another dashboard may handle all personal files that are both available and unavailable to other users).
Regarding claim 16, Ford further described wherein the service modification event comprises one of: installation of a plugin for the first online service (0209, support plugins, 0266, A plug-in to an application that is being used to interact with the content can accomplish blocking the operating system calls); updating to a new version of a plugin that is installed for the first online service; changing a current theme associated with the first online service; or modifying source code for a current theme.
Regarding claim 17, Ford further described computing a similarity score for the second online service, the similarity score indicating similarity of the second online service to the first online service; and determining that the similarity score for the second online service exceeds a defined threshold (0544, determine which workflow description is being executed by the current workflow instance, compare the event history of a workflow instance with its corresponding workflow description).
Regarding claim 18, Ford further described identify one or more third online services that are different from the second online service; compare changes in the value of the at least one performance metric resulting from the service modification event for the first online service and for the one or more third online services, wherein the service modification event is determined to be associated with the unanticipated performance change for the first online service based on comparisons using data for the second online service and the one or more third online services (0140, A funds widget may provide for selection of a fund, providing overview and performance information, and the like. There may also be sub-widgets that provide further functionality to a widget. The user may also have multiple dashboards, such as for different exchanges, different markets, different deals, and the like. One dashboard may handle information that is available to other users, and another dashboard may handle all personal files that are both available and unavailable to other users).
Regarding claim 20, Ford further described wherein the similarity score for the second online service is computed based on comparing service data associated with the first and second online services (0173, Determinations of similarity, used for purposes of predicting interest, may compare various attributes, including organizational size, organizational type or industrial classification category, transaction type, past history of deal making, and the like at the enterprise level and may also be based at the individual or role level, involving comparison of attributes relating to the individual or role, including past activity history (e.g., tracking that the individual tends to explore the balance sheet and profit-and-loss statement first), level in the organization, tenure with an organization, past employment history, and many others).
Contact information
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tung Lau whose telephone number is (571)272-2274, email is Tungs.lau@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday 7:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, TURNER SHELBY, can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272- 1000.
/TUNG S LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Technology Center 2800
July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights