DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments received 10/29/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 3-4 as set forth below in this Office action.
Applicant argues that (REMARKS, p.2):
PNG
media_image1.png
348
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is advised that, according to MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), the USPTO determines claim eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 using the Alice framework. The analysis under Step 2A - Prong 1 evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Step 2A - Prong 2 asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, if necessary, Step 2B further analyzes whether or not the claim provides an Inventive Concept. That is, the claim needs to be analyzed limitation by limitation, and/or element by element, following the MPEP/2019 PEG guidelines.
In the instant case, focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly and giving the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to the claims, Examiner asserts that the pending claims 1-2, 4-12, 14, and 17-24 are directed to an abstract idea of assessing and predicting localized heat stress conditions using meteorological data analysis but without reciting any additional element that would amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception (see detailed analysis as set forth in sections 3-4 below). Specifically, under the 2019 PEG, when assessing subject matter eligibility for a patent, claim limitations of “processing data and information such as data recording, manipulation, evaluation and judgment”, “classifying data using a generic or known classification algorithm”, “performing data transformation based on math relationships”, and “numerical modelling or simulation using math concepts” are all treated as judicial exceptions that fall within a combination of the mental process and the math concept groupings of abstract ideas. Just like determining a ratio between two values, computing the impedance from known values of voltage and current using a well-known Ohm's Law, frequency spectrums using Fourier-transform, or performing a straightforward arithmetic operation without any inventive application of that calculation to a specific technological problem, the pending claims of the present application are "directed to" mathematical concepts that can be performed in human mind and/or with pen/paper. Furthermore, according to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
In particular, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the step of “performing an image analysis on the user-contributed imagery using a cloud-classification algorithm to identify … in accordance with predefined brightness-temperature or optical-depth criteria, thereby generating layer-specific cloud characterization data derived from brightness-temperature and optical-depth measurements” encompasses a mental process of classifying data using a generic neural-network enabled machine learning model/algorithm, which is similar to how a human would categorize or filter information using mental steps/critical thinking. It has been held that simply applying an existing technique (e.g. a “Black Box AI” whose internal workings are a mystery to its user) to a new type of data is not enough to confer eligibility. See the USPTO’s July 17, 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (e.g., Example 48, claim 2, analysis of Step (d)).
Applicant further argues that (REMARKS, p.2):
PNG
media_image2.png
262
816
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the BRI to the claim limitations, the various meteorological and environmental data/information recited in the pending claims of the present application encompass merely data characterization and are descriptives of the information being observed/determined which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of assessing and predicting localized heat stress conditions.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the claims recite “concrete modeling operations that change digital environmental data into a physically transformed microscale meteorological dataset”, this does not appear persuasive. The claims recite “digital environmental data” including meteorological data corresponding to a geographic area associated with the target microscale location, digital imagery captured at the target microscale location, and localized terrain data specific to the target microscale location. However, these physical elements are not being transformed in any way. Instead, data is obtained and the information is being extracted and/or manipulated, i.e. “transformed”, into other data through mathematical calculations. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(c), the manipulation of data is not deemed to be a physical “transformation” of an article to a different state or thing. Instead, manipulating information through mathematical calculations is itself abstract. For example, see MPEP 2106.05(g): “An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” See also MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2): “iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant further argues that (REMARKS, p.3):
PNG
media_image3.png
525
852
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order to evaluate whether or not the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, additional limitations in the claim beyond the judicial exception must be identified and then analyzed, individually and in combination, to determine whether or not they integrate the exception into a practical application. Under the 2019 PEG, an additional limitation in the claim integrates the exception into a practical application if it improves the functioning of a computer or improves the technology or technical field uses the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, transforms or reduces a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a particular technological environment. In the instant case, Examiner identifies the steps of “obtaining meteorological data corresponding to a geographic area associated with the target microscale location, …” (S1), “receiving user-contributed imagery …” (S2) and “obtaining localized terrain data …” (S3) as the additional limitations recited in representative claim 1. However, under the BRI, it is considered that each of the Step S1, S2 and S3 reads on merely pre-solution activities of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the claimed abstract idea. None of the Step S1, S2 and S3 requires any particular devices or sensors to perform the “obtaining” and/or “receiving”, while the claimed contents of the “geographic area”, the “meteorological data”, the “cloud cover data”, the “imagery”, and the “localized terrain data” encompass insignificant data characterization which are treated as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment or field of use. As such, although each of the Step S1, S2 and S3 appears to be a tangible action, they are not qualified for meaningful ways or providing an Inventive Concept for practicing the abstract idea such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “ … provides an improvement in the functioning of environmental monitoring systems”, Examiner asserts that the pending claims of the present application do not provide any qualified improvement under MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a). At most, they recite an improved abstract idea, and an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea. It is held that simply setting forth advantages (i.e. benefits) of use without providing any rational/evidence to how/why the claimed elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception could be treated as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), but not qualified for an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. The key is to show that the claim goes beyond just performing a calculation and provides a practical application or significant improvement through the use of that calculation. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and 2106.05(a).
The rest of the Applicant’s arguments are reliant upon the issues discussed above or have been fully addressed by the analysis under the 2019 PEG as set forth below in this Office action, thus are deemed non-persuasive as well.
Regarding to the rejection under 35 USC 102/103, Applicant’s arguments in reference to the amended claims are deemed persuasive and the corresponding rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
4. Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14, and 17-24 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.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14, and 17-24 are directed to an abstract idea of assessing and predicting localized heat stress conditions using meteorological data analysis.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
A method for estimating a value for an environmental heat stress index at a target microscale location, the method comprising:
(S1) obtaining meteorological data corresponding to a geographic area associated with the target microscale location, the geographic area being defined so as to include, encompass, or be spatially proximate to at least a portion of a target microscale location, the meteorological data comprising a first wind parameter representative of wind conditions at a first altitude, and cloud cover data indicative of fractional amounts of cloud coverage at multiple atmospheric layers;
(S2) receiving user-contributed imagery captured at the target microscale location, the imagery comprising a digital representation of sky conditions and being associated with a time of capture;
(S3) obtaining localized terrain data specific to the target microscale location, wherein the localized terrain data comprises at least one of land elevation, land cover, surface roughness, vegetation characteristics, soil composition, soil moisture, thermal properties of surface materials, or structural features of a built environment, and reflects spatial and environmental detail unique to the target microscale location, the localized terrain data comprising a land cover classification from which a surface roughness length is determinable;
(S4) performing an image analysis on the user-contributed imagery using a cloud-classification algorithm to identify cloud type, cloud height, and cloud thickness across multiple atmospheric layers in accordance with predefined brightness-temperature or optical-depth criteria, thereby generating layer-specific cloud characterization data derived from brightness-temperature and optical-depth measurements:
(S5) performing a bias correction on the meteorological data using the localized terrain data and the layer-specific cloud characterization data to generate microscale meteorological data, wherein the performing bias correction comprises:
(S5.1) adjusting the first wind parameter by applying a terrain-dependent boundary-layer wind- profile transformation to determine a second wind parameter representative of wind conditions at a second altitude that is lower than the first altitude, the second wind parameter being more reflective of near-surface wind conditions at the target microscale location than the first wind parameter,
(S5.2) adjusting the cloud cover data to determine updated fractional cloud coverage values corresponding to the multiple atmospheric layers, the adjusting comprising classifying the user-contributed imagery based at least in part on visual characteristics of the sky conditions, the updated fractional cloud coverage values being more reflective of actual cloud conditions across the multiple atmospheric layers at the target microscale location than the cloud cover data, and
(S5.3) computing a solar radiation parameter by applying optical depth attenuation coefficients specific to respective atmospheric layers to the updated fractional cloud coverage values to simulate radiative transfer through the multilayer atmosphere;
(S6) integrating the second wind parameter, the solar radiation parameter, and the localized terrain data into a microscale atmospheric model thereby generating bias-corrected microscale meteorological data representing a physically transformed atmospheric state at the target microscale location; and
(S7) calculating a value for an environmental heat stress index for the target microscale location based on the bias-corrected microscale meteorological data, wherein the calculating comprises using the second wind parameter, in lieu of the first wind parameter and using the solar radiation parameter derived from the multilayer radiative-transfer simulation such that the value represents a quantified measure of heat-related risk specific to the target microscale location.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
Method
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), Step S4 encompasses a mental process, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. It has been held that a general method step of classifying data using a generic or known classification algorithm, such as an neural-network enabled machine learning model, is similar to how a human would categorize or filter information, thus is treated as an unpatentable mental process. That is, simply applying an existing technique to a new type of data is not enough to confer eligibility. See the USPTO’s July 17, 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (e.g., Example 48, claim 2, analysis of Step (d)).
Under its BRI, each of the Step S5, S6 and S7 encompasses mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers (see Specification, e.g., para. [0018], [0030]-[0041], [0070], [0084], [0086], and [0094]-[0099]) that may also be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
The claimed “microscale atmospheric model” is recited at a high-level of generality which encompasses merely a set of coupled math equations that describe the atmosphere's fluid motion, thermodynamics, and physics, which can be solved numerically on supercomputers to forecast future atmospheric/weather states by approximating these math equations across a microscale grid. Ans the lack of specific equations for said model indicates that the claim would monopolize all possible numerical weather prediction models in performing the steps at issue.
The limitation of “integrating …” in Step S6 is simply a data manipulation process of combining the diverse sources of information to be used as the input into the model (See Specification para. [0086]), which can be performed in human mind or with paper/pen.
The combination of S5, S6 and S7 therefore amount to a series of mental and mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Under the BRI, the various meteorological variables/parameters recited in the bolded portion encompass merely data characterization and are descriptive of the information being observed/determined which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of assessing and predicting localized heat stress conditions.
Nothing in the claimed limitations precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper.
As such, the bolded portion of instant claim 1 falls within a combination of the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Process” Groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
Each of the Step S1, S2 and S3 reads on merely a process of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea identified above in 2A - Prong 1. According to MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): … that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. As such, it represents a pre-solution activity to the judicial exception. Furthermore, each of the Step S1, S2 and S3 as recited does not require any particular devices or sensors to perform the “obtaining” and/or “receiving”. Thus claim 1 would monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of applications.
In addition, Step S1 recites limitations of the geographic area, the meteorological data, the cloud cover data, the user-contributed imagery data, and the localized terrain data. Under the BRI, these limitations only generally link the use of the judicial exception (math + mental) to a particular technological environment or field of use but do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In general, the claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
See analysis given in 2A - Prong 2 above.
Examiner’s note:
Applying meteorological data analysis, in combination with localized terrain data, to assess and predict localized heat stress conditions is well-understood and conventional in the art (see the prior art references cited in the previous Office Actions).
In the instant case, focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is considered that the “heart” of pending claim 1 is directed to an algorithm of calculating localized heat stress conditions using existing meteorological data, in combination with known localized terrain data and user-contributed in-situ imagery data comprising a digital representation of sky conditions. This kind of modification involves only mental process and mathematical concepts to modify the parameters that refine the algorithm for calculating the heat stress conditions at any selected geographical locations. The claim does not recite any additional element that amounts to “significantly more” or an “inventive concept” under the 2019 PEG (see also MPEP 2106.05).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 2, 4-12, 14, 17-18 and 22-24 inherit attributes of the independent claim 1, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. These claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
In particular, claim 10 recites: wherein obtaining the localized terrain data comprises obtaining data from at least one of the following: a Geographic Information System (GIS) that integrates layers of data representing urban structures, terrain features, or vegetation; satellite imagery or aerial photography that provide information on land cover or urban development; topographic maps or surveys conducted by national or regional mapping agencies that detail contours, elevations, or specific landscape features; environmental sensors deployed in the target microscale location that gather real-time or periodic data on soil conditions, vegetation health, or urban heat islands; or local observations. Under the BRI, these limitations encompass merely data characterization which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of terrain data observation and assimilation.
Claim 17 recites limitations of presenting the calculated value for the environmental heat stress index within a user interface. These limitations are not qualified for meaningful limitations to integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application because they only generally attach a post-solution activity (i.e., displaying/outputting the results from the abstract idea) to the judicial exception recited in the pending claims.
Under the BRI, claims 19-21 are directed to an abstract idea of calculating localized heat stress conditions using existing meteorological data in combination with known localized terrain data and physiological data associated with a user at the target microscale location but without significantly more. As such, claims 19-21 are rejected for the same reason as for claims 1-2, 4-12, 14, 17-18 and 22-24 set forth above.
Hence the claims 1-2, 4-12, 14, and 17-24 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner’s Note
5. Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14, and 17-24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101 set forth in sections 3-4 above in this Office Action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for the allowance of claims 1-2, 4-12, 14, 17-18 and 22-24 is the inclusion of the limitation of: receiving user-contributed imagery captured at the target microscale location, the imagery comprising a digital representation of sky conditions and being associated with a time of capture; performing an image analysis on the user-contributed imagery using a cloud-classification algorithm to identify cloud type, cloud height, and cloud thickness across multiple atmospheric layers in accordance with predefined brightness-temperature or optical-depth criteria, thereby generating layer-specific cloud characterization data derived from brightness-temperature and optical-depth measurements: adjusting the first wind parameter by applying a terrain-dependent boundary-layer wind- profile transformation to determine a second wind parameter representative of wind conditions at a second altitude that is lower than the first altitude, the second wind parameter being more reflective of near-surface wind conditions at the target microscale location than the first wind parameter, adjusting the cloud cover data to determine updated fractional cloud coverage values corresponding to the multiple atmospheric layers, the adjusting comprising classifying the user-contributed imagery based at least in part on visual characteristics of the sky conditions, the updated fractional cloud coverage values being more reflective of actual cloud conditions across the multiple atmospheric layers at the target microscale location than the cloud cover data, and computing a solar radiation parameter by applying optical depth attenuation coefficients specific to respective atmospheric layers to the updated fractional cloud coverage values to simulate radiative transfer through the multilayer atmosphere; integrating the second wind parameter, the solar radiation parameter, and the localized terrain data into a microscale atmospheric model thereby generating bias-corrected microscale meteorological data representing a physically transformed atmospheric state at the target microscale location; and calculating a value for an environmental heat stress index for the target microscale location based on the bias-corrected microscale meteorological data, wherein the calculating comprises using the second wind parameter in lieu of the first wind parameter and using the solar radiation parameter derived from the multilayer radiative-transfer simulation such that the value represents a quantified measure of heat-related risk specific to the target microscale location. It is these limitations, as they are claimed in the combination recited in independent claim 1, that would make claims 1-2, 4-12, 14, 17-18 and 22-24 distinguish over the prior art of record.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 19 is the inclusion of the limitation of a processor configured to: obtain user-contributed imagery captured at the target microscale location, the imagery comprising a digital representation of sky conditions; perform a cloud-classification analysis on the user-contributed imagery to identify cloud type, cloud height, and cloud thickness across the multiple atmospheric layers in accordance with predefined brightness-temperature or optical-depth criteria, thereby generating layer-specific cloud characterization data; perform a bias correction on the meteorological data and the layer-specific cloud characterization data to generate microscale meteorological data based on the localized terrain data, the bias correction dynamically adapting to real-time variations in localized environmental conditions and adjusting for at least one of wind speed, boundary layer mixing, radiative influences, or humidity relevant to the target microscale location, wherein performing the bias correction comprises applying a terrain-dependent boundary-layer wind-profile transformation to the wind parameter to determine anear-surface wind parameter and computing a solar radiation parameter by applying optical depth attenuation coefficients to the cloud characterization data to simulate radiative transfer through the multilayer atmosphere; integrate the near-surface wind parameter, the solar radiation parameter, and the localized terrain data into a microscale atmospheric model to produce bias-corrected microscale meteorological data representing a physically transformed atmospheric state at the target microscale location; and calculate a personalized value for an environmental heat stress index for the user at the target microscale location based on the bias-corrected microscale meteorological data and the user-contributed physiological data, wherein the personalized value represents a quantified measure of heat-related risk specific to the user and the target microscale location. It is these limitations, as they are claimed in the combination recited in independent claim 19, that would make claim 19 distinguish over the prior art of record.
The primary reason for the allowance of claims 20-21 is the inclusion of the limitation of: performing a cloud-classification analysis on localized imagery corresponding to each target microscale location to identify cloud type, cloud height, and cloud thickness across the multiple atmospheric layers, thereby generating layer-specific cloud-characterization data; performing a bias correction on the meteorological data and the layer-specific cloud- characterization data for each of the target microscale locations using corresponding localized terrain data to generate microscale meteorological data, wherein the bias correction dynamically adapts to real-time variations in localized environmental conditions and adjusts for at least one of wind speed, boundary layer mixing, radiative influences, or humidity; and calculating, for each of the target microscale locations, a respective value for an environmental heat stress index based on the microscale meteorological data, wherein each value quantifies heat-related risk specific to that target microscale location. It is these limitations, as they are claimed in the combination recited in independent claim 20, that would make claims 20-21 distinguish over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner 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 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857