DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 03/19/2026 has been entered.
3. Currently claims 1, 14 and 20 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
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.
(Step 1)
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering claims 1, 14 and 20 as representative claims, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
Claim 1:
receive a framework for the set of artifacts, wherein the framework is determined according to a learning tendency of a user, wherein the learning tendency indicates a characteristic of the user, wherein the characteristic indicates a learning type of a user, wherein the learning type includes a visual learner type, reading/writing type, a kinesthetic type, or an auditory learner type;
determine one or more content artifacts based on the received framework, wherein the one or more content artifacts is determined according to a learning preference of the user and the learner type;
[send] a request to provide the one or more content artifacts;
receive the one or more content artifacts;
provide access for the one or more content artifacts to two or more types of reviewers with an educator role, a sponsor role, a content contributor role, and/or a student role so as to perform a quality assurance (QA) process,
the educator role is designated to teach the one or more content artifacts,
the sponsor role is designated to endorse the one or more content artifacts,
the content contributor role is designated to provide an input for the content contributor role, and
the student role is designated to learn by the one or more content artifacts,
the one or more content artifacts include a first set of course item[s] and a second set of course items,
the sponsor role has access to the first and second sets or course items, and
the educator role, the content contributor role, and the student role only have access to the first set of course items;
receive a first review result after [allowing] a first type of reviewer with one of the educator role, the contributor role, and the student role access the first set of course items;
receive a second review result after [allowing] a second type of reviewer with the sponsor role to access the second set of course items;
generate a result of the QA process at least based on the first review result and the second review result; and
revise the one or more content artifacts based on the result of the QA process.
Claim 14:
receive a framework for a set of artifacts from a user with the course-creator role, wherein the framework is determined according to learning tendency of a user, wherein the learning tendency indicates a characteristic of the user, wherein the characteristic indicates a learning type of a user, wherein the learning type includes a visual learner type, a kinesthetic type, or an auditory learner type;
determine one or more content artifacts based on the received framework, wherein the one or more content artifacts are determined according to learning preference of the user and the learner type;
[send] a first request to provide the one or more content artifacts;
[send] a second request to one or more users with the content contributor role to provide supplement to the one or more content artifacts;
receive the one or more content artifacts;
receive the supplement of the one or more content artifacts; and
provide access for the one or more content artifacts and the supplement of the one or more content artifacts to two or more types of reviewers with an educator role, a sponsor role, a content contributor role, and/or a student role so as to perform a quality assurance (QA) process,
the educator role is designated to teach the one or more content artifacts,
the sponsor role is designated to endorse the one or more content artifacts,
the content contributor role is designated to provide an input for the content contributor role, and
wherein the student role is designated to learn by the one or more content artifacts,
the one or more content artifacts include a first set of course item[s] and a second set of course items,
the sponsor role has access to the first and second sets or course items, and
the educator role, the content contributor role, and the student role only have access to the first set of course items;
receive a first review result after [allowing] a first type of reviewer with one of the educator role, the contributor role, and the student role access the first set of course items;
receive a second review result after [allowing] a second type of reviewer with the sponsor role to access the second set of course items;
generate a result of the QA process at least based on the first review result and the second review result; and
revise the one or more content artifacts based on the result of the QA process.
Claim 20:
receive a framework for a set of artifacts, wherein the framework is determined according to a learning tendency of a user, wherein the learning tendency indicates a characteristic of the user, wherein the characteristic indicates a learning type of a user, wherein the learning type includes a visual learner type, a kinesthetic type, or an auditory learner type;
determine one or more content artifacts based on the received framework, wherein the one or more content artifacts are determined according to a learning preference of the user and the learner type;
[send] a request to provide the one or more content artifacts;
receive the one or more content artifacts; and
provide access for the one or more content artifacts to two or more types of reviewers with an educator role, a sponsor role, a content contributor role, and/or a student role so as to perform a quality assurance (QA) process,
the educator role is designated to teach the one or more content artifacts,
the sponsor role is designated to endorse the one or more content artifacts,
the content contributor role is designated to provide an input for the content contributor role, and
the student role is designated to learn by the one or more content artifacts,
the one or more content artifacts include a first set of course item[s] and a second set of course items,
the sponsor role has access to the first and second sets or course items, and
the educator role, the content contributor role, and the student role only have access to the first set of course items;
receive a first review result after [allowing] a first type of reviewer with one of the educator role, the contributor role, and the student role access the first set of course items;
receive a second review result after [allowing] a second type of reviewer with the sponsor role to access the second set of course items;
generate a result of the QA process at least based on the first review result and the second review result; and
revise the one or more content artifacts based on the result of the QA process.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
For instance, the claims correspond to managing personal behavior—such as, an educational or a social activity; wherein, using a framework determined according to a learning tendency of a user (i.e., a learning tendency that indicates the user as: a visual learner, a kinesthetic learner or an auditory learner), one or more artifacts (e.g., content materials) are determined based on a learning preference of the user and the learner type above; and thereby, a request is sent to content providers in order to provide one or more artifacts—such as, a first set of content items and a second set of course items; and accordingly, once the artifacts are received from the content providers, access is provided to one or more reviewers according to their roles (i.e., one or more reviewers with an educator role, a sponsor role, a content contributor role, and/or a student role); so that, the reviewers perform a quality assurance (QA) process, including: (i) obtaining a first review that corresponds to the second set of course items from a reviewer with the educator role, the content contributor role, or the student role, (ii) obtaining a second review result that corresponds to the second set of course items from a reviewer with the sponsor role; and a result of the QA process is generated based on the first review result and the second review result; and finally, based on the result of the quality assurance result above, the one or more artifacts are revised, etc.
Similarly, given the limitations that recite one or more of: determining a framework according to a learning tendency of a user; determining one or more content artifacts based on the framework; determining one or more of the content artifacts based on the learning preference of the user and the learner type; receiving a first review result after a first reviewer accesses the first set of course items; receiving a second review result after a second reviewer accesses the second set of course items; generating a result based on the first review result and the second review result, etc., the current claims also overlap with the group mental processes—such as, a process that can be performed in the human mind and/or using a pen and paper (e.g., an evaluation, an opinion, and/or a judgment process, etc.).
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong Two
The claims recite additional elements, wherein a computer-based system (e.g., a computer system that implements a processor, a memory, etc.), which implement a content management platform, is utilized to facilitate the recited functions/steps regarding: collecting information (e.g. per claims 1 and 20, “receiving, by a content management platform, a framework for the set of artifacts . . .”; and, per claim 14, “receive a framework for a set of artifacts from a user with the course-creator role . . .”); making a determination based on the collected information (per claims 1 and 20, “determining, by the content management platform, one or more content artifacts based on the received framework . . .”; and per claim 14, “determine one or more content artifacts based on the received framework . . .”); transmitting information (per claims 1 and 20, “transmitting, by the content management platform, a request to one or more content generators to provide the one or more content artifacts”; and per claim 14, “transmit, by the content management platform, a first request to one or more users with the course generator role to provide the one or more content artifacts; transmit, by the content management platform, a second request to one or more users with the content contributor role to provide supplement to the one or more content artifacts”); collecting further information from providers (per claims 1 and 20, “receiving, by the content management platform, the one or more content artifacts”; and per claim 14, “receive the one or more artifacts; receive the supplement of the one or more content artifacts”); providing access to uses/reviewers in order to perform quality analysis (per claims 1 and 14, “providing access for the one or more content artifacts to two or more types of reviewers with an educator role, a sponsor role, a content contributor role. and/or a student role so as to perform a quality assurance (QA) process . . . a fist set of course item[s] and a second set of course items . . .”; per claim 20, “providing access for the one or more content artifacts and the supplement of the one or more content artifacts to two or more types of reviewers with an educator role, a sponsor role, a content contributor role, and/or a student role so as to perform a quality assurance (QA) process . . . a fist set of course item[s] and a second set of course items . . .”); generating relevant results based on the quality analysis above (per each of claims 1, 14 and 20: “receiving a first review result after enabling a first type of reviewer . . . access the first set of course items; receiving a second review result after enabling a second type of reviewer . . . access the second set of course items; generating a result of the QA process at least based on the first review result and the second review result”); and revising content items (“revising the one or more content artifacts based on the result of the QA process”), etc.
However, the claimed additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional element(s) are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Thus, when each claim is considered as a whole, the additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since they fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions. Accordingly, none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
It is also worth to note that the use of the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate the generation and/or delivery of content materials to one or more users; such as, the process of generating and/or evaluating pertinent content materials to a user(s), based on the analysis of one or more attributes regarding the user (e.g., the user’s learning preferences), etc., is already directed to a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art (e.g., see US 2012/0231438; US 2015/006659; US 2015/0243180; US 20040002039, etc.).
The above observation confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-13 and 15-19). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element/function utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the findings above demonstrate that none of the claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology).
► Applicant’s arguments directed to section §101 have been fully considered (the arguments filed on 03/19/2026). However, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, regarding Prong One of Step 2A, Applicant asserts, “the amended claims do not include steps that can be reasonably implemented by human beings in their mind or with pen and paper . . . a human cannot perform the claimed ‘receiving’ and ‘determining’ and ‘transmitting’ steps. As required by claim 1, these claimed steps are in fact performed by the claimed ‘content management platform.’ Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims are similar to Example 39 provided by the USPTO . . . the present application also include steps that are not ‘practically performed in the human mind,’ such as the ‘receiving’ and ‘determining’ and ‘transmitting’ steps recited in claim 1 . . . the claimed steps are performed by a hardware device with a processor and a memory and thus cannot be simply implemented by a human being with a pen and paper. Thus, the claimed steps are not a simple organization of human activities” (emphasis modified).
However, except for the general assertion, Applicant does not appear to properly apply the inquire per Prong One of Step 2A. For instance, despite concluding that a human cannot perform the “receiving” and “determining” steps, Applicant does not provide any rationale to substantiate the above assertion. In contrast, a human can indeed perform—mentally and/or using a pen and paper—such process of receiving and determining. For instance, a human—e.g., a teacher or an administrator—can use a pen and paper to draft/note a framework for a set of artifacts (e.g., an outline or a program for teaching one or more courses, etc.) based on the consideration one or more attributes of a student, including an attribute that indicates whether the student is a visual leaner, an auditory learner, a kinesthetic leaner. The above indicates that a human can indeed perform the core of the receiving process that the claims are reciting.
Similarly, regarding the process of determining, again the teacher/administrator above can determine—mentally and/or using a pen and paper—one or more content artifacts (e.g., one or more course materials) based on multiple factors; namely, the framework (e.g., the course outline or the program) that the teacher drafted above, the learning preference of the student, and also the learning type to which the student is categorized (e.g., a visual leaner, an auditory learner, a kinesthetic leaner). For instance, the teacher lists—via a piece of paper—one or more of the course materials determined above. The above confirms that a human can also perform the core of the determining process that the claims are reciting.
In addition, regarding the process of transmitting, the teacher can send the piece of paper above, which lists the course material needed, to one or more content providers (e.g., the teacher hands the piece of paper to an entity that delivers course materials to schools, etc.).
The observation above confirms that the current claims recite an abstract idea; namely, a mental process, which encompasses concepts that can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Of course, the above are merely exemplary scenarios; and therefore, similar type of analysis applies to the rest of the limitations that recite the abstract idea.
It is true that the current claims also recite limitations that are not part of the abstract idea; such as, the content management platform, which is implemented as a hardware or computer-based system (e.g., a hardware device incorporating a processor and a memory, etc.). However, the inquiry under Prong One does not consider such elements of the claims, which are the additional elements. Instead, Prong One requires one to identify merely the limitations that recite the judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, Applicant’s attempt to challenge the finding under Prong One, while relying on such additional elements, is not persuasive.
Furthermore, unlike Applicant’s assertion, none of the current claims is analogous to Example 39. This is because Example 39, unlike the current claims, does not recite any judicial exception—such as, an abstract idea. For instance, none of the limitations recites concepts that correspond to managing human behavior—such as, teaching or social activity; and furthermore, none of the limitations can practically be performed in the human mind and/or using a pen and paper, etc. In contrast, the current claims do recite an abstract idea, including a mental process—i.e., a concept(s) that can be performed in the human mind and/or using a pen and paper (e.g., see the exemplary scenarios discussed above).
Similarly, given the fact that multiple users, which includes the educator and the student, are engaging with one another when creating and/or reviewing the educational materials to be delivered to students, this fact also confirms that the claims do recite the abstract idea per the group, certain method of organizing human activity. Consequently, Applicant’s attempt to challenge the Office’s finding, while relying on non-analogues example, is not persuasive.
Secondly, regarding Prong Two, Applicant asserts, “similar to Example 42. . . the pending claims recite steps that are integrated into a practical application . . . the pending claims recite a combination of claim elements including (1) receiving a framework for a set of artifacts, determining one or more content artifacts based on the received framework, (2) transmitting a request to one or more content generators . . . the pending claims also recite ‘wherein the one or more content artifacts includes a first set of course item and a second set of course items, wherein the sponsor role has access to the first and second sets of course items, and wherein the educator role, the content contributor role, and the student role only have access to the first set of course items’ . . . the claims also require ‘receiving a first review result after enabling a first type of reviewer with one of the educator role, the content contributor role, and the student role to access the first set of course items;’ ‘receiving a second review result after enabling a second type of reviewer with the sponsor role to access the second set of course items;’ and ‘generating a result of the QA process at least based on the first review result and the second review result.’” (emphasis modified). Applicant further identified sections form the specification that provide support regarding the limitations above (e.g., [0037] to [0040]).
However, except for listing the steps or functions being performed per the current claims, including the support from the specification regarding the components and/or functions that the claims are implementing, Applicant appears to fail to address the core inquiry established per Prong Two of Step 2A. In particular, Applicant fails to demonstrate whether any of the current claims, when considered as a whole, is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. Note that given the claimed features, including the description in the specification, the claimed—and the disclosed—system/method is relying on the existing computer/network technology. If Applicant assumes that any of the claims is integrating the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application, then Applicant should identify a feature (if any)—or a combination of features (if any)—that provides a technological improvement over the existing computer/network technology. In contrast, given the lack of a feature—or a combination of features—that provides a technological improvement, neither the claimed system/method nor the disclosed system/method integrates the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Although Applicant fails to properly identify the claim being considered regarding Example 42 (claim 1 or claim 2), none of the current claims is analogous to Claim 1 of Example 42. This is because Claim 1 of Example 42 provides a technological improvement. In particular, it is implementing a conversion process that mitigates document accessibility issues due to the differences in hardware and/or software configurations of different devices. For instance, a given document, which is generated using a first device that has a first hardware/software configuration, is converted into a standard format; so that, this same document can also be accessed using a second device that has a second different hardware/software configuration, etc. In contrast, neither Applicant’s claims nor Applicant’s original disclosure even contemplates—much less positively implements—a technological improvement. Instead, the current claims, including the original disclosure is utilizing the exiting computer/network technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate the abstract idea (e.g., see the abstract idea identified under Prong One).
Consequently, Applicant’s conclusory assertion, “[t]he pending claims as a whole integrate the claimed steps into a practical application by enabling users to effectively generate learner-specific learning content and efficiently review the generated content by specific quality assurance steps”, is not persuasive.
Thirdly, regarding Step 2B, Applicant asserts, “the amended claims include significant features in addition to the asserted abstract ideas mentioned on pages 3-6 of the Office Action” (emphasis added). Applicant is further attempting to substantiate the above assertion while referring to the fact that the current claims are nonobvious over the prior art.
However, unlike Applicant’s assertion, neither the alleged novelty (section §102) nor the alleged non-obviousness (section §103) of a claim necessarily supports the patent-eligibility of the claim. This is because a claim (e.g., see current claim 1), which relies merely on the existing technology, may overcome the prior art due to the new abstract idea it is reciting. However, the above does not necessarily mean that the claim is patent-eligible. This is because a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea; Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see MPEP 2106.06 (I) (emphasis added),
Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the §101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) . . . See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a §101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating §102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103 . . . patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C.102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C.101.
The above confirms that Applicant’s attempt to substantiate the alleged eligibility of the current claims, while relying on the alleged novelty and/or non-obviousness of the claims, is not persuasive. This is because an inventive concept (if any) is demonstrated, per Step 2B, if any of the claims is directed to a non-generic and non-conventional arrangement of the additional elements. In contrast, when each of the current claims is considered as a whole, each of the claims is directed to the generic and conventional arrangement of the additional elements (i.e., each of the current claims is relying on the conventional computer/network technology). Thus, each of the current claims fails to satisfy the inquiry per Step 2B. Of course, the lack of technological improvement also confirms that lack of an inventive concept per Step 2B (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Thus, at least for the reasons discussed above, the Office concludes that none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, implements an inventive concept that amounts to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
● Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(a) or 35 U.S.C.112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “the learning type includes a visual learner type, reading/writing type, a kinesthetic type, or an auditory learner type” (emphasis added).
However, the original disclosure does not appear to have sufficient written description regarding such reading/writing learning type. Although the specification broadly indicates a scenario where a given student may prefer (i) “learning in language X by speaking and listening”, (ii) “learning in written language y”, (iii) “study materials with bullet points” and (iv) “learning material with a detailed step-by-step guidance” (see [0011] of the specification), none of the above—alone or in combination—necessarily represents a reading/writing learning type.
Applicant is further advised to review each of the current claims and make appropriate corrections if additional discrepancies are discovered (e.g., remove any new subject matter that any of the claims may recite, etc.).
Note that, when an amendment is filed in reply to an objection or rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a), or first paragraph (pre-AIA ), a study of the entire application is often necessary to determine whether or not "new matter" is involved. Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP 2163.06).
6. 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 second paragraph (pre-AIA ), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Each of claims 1, 14 and 20 recites, “the one or more content artifacts includes a first set of course item and a second set of course items . . . only have access to the first set if course items” (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the claims are ambiguous since it is unclear whether the claims are referring to just a single first set of course item or a plurality of first set of course items.
Nevertheless, the plural form, i.e., “first set of course items”, is considered for examination purpose.
Applicant is further advised to evaluate each of the current claims and make appropriate corrections if additional discrepancies are discovered.
Prior Art
● Considering each of claims 1, 14 and 20 as a whole (including their respective dependent claims), the prior art does not teach or suggest the current claims (regarding the state of the prior art, see the office action dated 11/19/2025).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, PETER VASAT can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715