Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 07/02/2026.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 15, 18 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicants’ amendments and arguments filed on 07/02/2026 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “the claims address the problem of inefficient computational resource utilization in existing systems. By storing the campaign data and audience definition prior to the selection request, the system avoids the need to derive relevance from contemporaneous keyword input at selection request time. At selection request time, the server need only extract the identifier from the request, compare it to the precomputed audience definition, and transmit the selection if the user is in the audience - resulting in fewer computational determinations being made to place content with respect to existing systems. Id. at [0012]. Additionally, by leveraging the contextually-relevant audience definition, the system places content based on precomputed contextual relevance rather than ambiguous keyword matches, thereby mitigating the irrelevant content placement that would waste computational resources in providing irrelevant content the user is unlikely to interact with (page 5/7)”.
Examiner disagrees. By storing the campaign data and audience definition prior to the selection request, where at selection request time, the server need only extract the identifier from the request, compare it to the precomputed audience definition, and transmit the selection if the user is in the audience is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
The mere recitation of “device and server” is merely a general-purpose computer which is used to merely apply the abstract idea. Thus, while the claims recite the purported improvement, the improvement is rooted solely in the abstract idea which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer as evidenced by Applicant’s specification [79-82]. Improvements of this nature are improvements to an abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter (see SAP v. Investpic). As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations.
Additionally, the recitation of the end result that “ resulting in fewer computational determinations being made to place content with respect to existing systems and/ or leveraging the contextually-relevant audience definition, the system places content based on precomputed contextual relevance rather than ambiguous keyword matches, thereby mitigating the irrelevant content placement that would waste computational resources in providing irrelevant content the user is unlikely to interact with” is An improvement that arises from the abstract idea itself and is not an improvement in technology. For example, in trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology as Examiner notes. Thus, the claimed invention, when implemented, does not improve the functionality of the computer nor does it improve a technology/technical field. There is no technical evidence/technical support in the Applicant's Specification of technical improvements or of a technical solution to a technical problem. As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “the claims recite additional elements that amount to "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea, and thus satisfy Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. As explained in the MPEP and the USPTO's eligibility guidance, an inventive concept may be found in the non- conventional and non-generic arrangement of elements that provide a technical improvement over the prior art. See MPEP 2106.05. The claims describe specific, non-generic combination of features that include (i) a precomputed audience definition based on machine learning-based vectorization, semantic similarity thresholding, and implication scoring, and (ii) triggering content selection based on a selection request initiated via a user device's access of an element on an available webpage, where such content selection is selected based on the user's device identifier and the precomputed audience definition. There is no evidence demonstrating that this arrangement of features is well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field, and the features do not simply describe an automation of a known business process on a generic computer. Rather, the claims provide a concrete technological solution that improves the accuracy of real-time content placement on webpages accessed by user devices amongst interactions of computing components, such as a placement server, content exchange server, and third-party servers. See Specification at [0033]-[0039], [0044]-[0050]. The claims do not merely recite generic computer functions or insignificant extra-solution activity but describe a particular sequence of machine- executed technical operations that transform how audiences are defined and used to place contextually-relevant content at webpages in an automated manner. Accordingly, the claims recite an inventive concept and are therefore patent-eligible under Step 2B. For at least the reasons stated above, the claims satisfy the patent-eligibility requirements of Step 2A and 2B and are therefore patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims 2- 10, 12-17, and 19-20 depend from claims 1, 11, and 18, respectively, and are patent-eligible for at least the same reasons as the independent claims from which they depend. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (page 6/7)”.
Examiner disagrees. MPEP 2106.05, Under Step 2B, the claim is also analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations and claims that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Although additional elements are recited, representative claim 1 merely invokes such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a common-place business method (i.e. computer) being applied on a general purpose computer.
Although additional elements are recited, representative claim 1 merely invokes such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Thus, the use of server here fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method (how audiences are defined and used to place contextually-relevant content at webpages in an automated manner) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
As such, an purported improvement in what the applicant calls a technical field is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. In order for an improvement to a technology or technological filed to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection, the purported improvement must be rooted in the "additional elements" which in this case they are not. The claimed additional elements are merely a general purpose computer upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2.
Also, as evident by Applicant’s specification “A general-purpose server computer, a personal computer, or the like [27]can be used for determining users based on databases of webpage corpora for dynamic placement of content on available webpages hosted by third-party webservers processing apparatus 1, and the apparatus 1 can be configured using a generic computers and components recited at a high level of generality and used as tools to perform the abstract idea without improving computers, interfaces or other technologies.
The Alice decision requires the "additional elements" of the claim which must contribute something "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself that is far from routine and conventional. However, the only "additional elements" of “ server, device, machine learning and database” in the applicant's claims are a general- purpose computer with a generic computer components and performing a standard encoding technique. These "additional elements" are merely used as a tool to apply the abstract idea which is insufficient to be considered "significantly more" than the abstract idea. The argued limitations which the applicant asserts are far from routine and conventional are part of the abstract idea itself and not "additional elements" of the claimed invention. Thus, the argued limitations are not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. Instead, the argued limitations that the applicant asserts are far from routine and conventional would be, at best, an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. Thus, the applicants' arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
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 directed to a system and a method which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes). However, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea:
prior to a selection request:
receiving, a context term with which to identify one or more additional terms;
generating, a set of context terms including the context term and the one or more additional terms, by selecting from a corpus database one or more of a plurality of corpus terms having a relationship with the context term, the corpus database storing text extracted from a plurality of historic webpages, the relationship including a distance based upon a feature vector of the context term and the feature vector of the corpus term determined using a vectorization algorithm that satisfies a threshold indicating a semantic similarity with the context term, and filtering at least one corpus term based on an out-of-context term received;
calculating, an implication score for a plurality of topic terms based on a co-occurrence between each topic term and one or more of the set of context terms on a set of historic webpages associated with the topic term;
selecting, a particular topic term from the plurality of topic terms based on the implication score for the particular topic term;
determining, an audience representing a set of one or more users having accessed at least one of the set of historic webpages associated with the particular topic term; and
storing, into a campaign database, campaign data comprising the audience representing the set of one or more users, the set of context terms, and the particular topic term, the campaign data configured for executing a real-time bidding selection operation for an available webpage being accessed by a user of the audience hosted by one or more third-party during the real-time bidding selection operation; and
for the selection request received from a content exchange associated with a third-party hosting an available webpage having an element accessed by a user, according to the real-time bidding selection operation:
extracting, an identifier of the user that accessed the element from the selection request received from the content exchange associated with the third-party server hosting the available webpage having the element;
determining, that the user is in the set of one or more users of the audience for the available webpage based on a comparison of the extracted identifier of the user to user identifiers associated with the audience;
in response to determining that the user is in the set of one or more users of the audience for the available webpage, transmitting, a selection indicating content of a content provider for the element of the available webpage;
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of a computer with one or more hardware processors coupled to a non-transitory memory and configured to execute software instructions ( server, machine learning, device, webpages and a database (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer components) and a database to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receiving, by a server, from a client device, a context term with which to identify one or more additional terms;
storing, by the server into a campaign database, campaign data comprising the audience representing the set of one or more users, the set of context terms, and the particular topic term, the campaign data configured for executing a real-time bidding selection operation for an available webpage being accessed by a user of the audience hosted by one or more third-party servers during the real-time bidding selection operation;
the corpus database storing text extracted from a plurality of historic webpages, the relationship including a distance based upon a feature vector of the context term and the feature vector of the corpus term determined using a vectorization machine-learning model that satisfies a threshold indicating a semantic similarity with the context term, and filtering at least one corpus term based on an out-of-context term received from the client device;
transmitting, by the server, to the content exchange server, a selection indicating content of a content provider for the element of the available webpage;
More The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on one or more computers, or merely uses computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer with one or more hardware processors coupled to a non-transitory memory and configured to execute software instructions, and a database (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer component), to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on one or more computers, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from paragraphs 79-82 of the applicant’s specification) and the affinity v Direct TV decision which states that a database is a generic computer component); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receiving, by a server, from a client device, a context term with which to identify one or more additional terms;
storing, by the server into a campaign database, campaign data comprising the audience representing the set of one or more users, the set of context terms, and the particular topic term, the campaign data configured for executing a real-time bidding selection operation for an available webpage being accessed by a user of the audience hosted by one or more third-party servers during the real-time bidding selection operation;
the corpus database storing text extracted from a plurality of historic webpages, the relationship including a distance based upon a feature vector of the context term and the feature vector of the corpus term determined using a vectorization machine-learning model that satisfies a threshold indicating a semantic similarity with the context term, and filtering at least one corpus term based on an out-of-context term received from the client device;
transmitting, by the server, to the content exchange server, a selection indicating content of a content provider for the element of the available webpage;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 11 and 18.
The dependent claims 2-7,9-10, 12-17 and 19-20 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea by determining, by the server, the plurality of topic terms from a plurality of terms on the plurality of historic webpages, which is considered part of the abstract idea (claim 2); further limiting maintaining, by the server, an association between each user of a plurality of users, which is considered part of the abstract idea ( Claims 3, 13 and 19); further limiting ranking, by the server, a plurality of users for the topic term, which is considered part of the abstract idea ( Claims 4 and 14); further limiting parsing the selection request to extract the identifier of the user device, which is considered part of the abstract idea ( Claims 5, 15 and 20); further limiting receiving, by the server, from the client device, an audience size, which is part of the abstract idea (claims 6 and 16); further limiting generating, by the server, a plurality of phrases for the topic term, which is considered part of the abstract idea (claims 7 and 14); further limiting wherein generating the set of context terms, which is part of the abstract idea ( claim 9); further liming transmitting, by the server, the plurality of topic terms for display on a graphical user interface (GUI) of the client device, which is part of the abstract idea (claims 10 and 17), and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections identified above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The most relevant prior the examiner has found is:
Parekh et al, US Pub No: 2021/0319459 A1, teaches A method, apparatus, and computer program product are disclosed for improved machine learning using a statistical model. In the context of an apparatus, some example embodiments include a processor configured to cause retrieval of information regarding a plurality of consumers, and modeling circuitry configured to train a statistical model of the plurality of consumers based on the retrieved information, and predict, using the statistical model, an incremental booking value associated with the promotion for each consumer of the plurality of consumers. The processor is further configured to select a subset of the plurality of consumers for receiving impressions of the promotion. Some example embodiments may further include communications circuitry configured to transmit an impression of the promotion to each consumer in the subset of the plurality of consumers.
Bhatt et al, US Pub No: 2011/0035272 A1, teaches A method for making recommendations to improve advertisement campaign performance includes receiving a seed campaign insertion order (IO) having one or more campaign IO lines; computing a plurality of neighbor ad campaigns based on a comparison of the seed campaign IO with a dataset of advertiser ad campaign IO lines; generating campaign IO recommendations by executing an algorithm to recommend a campaign feature and value (FV) as a change to a line of the seed campaign IO based on success of such use by the neighbor ad campaigns; ranking the FV recommendations based on at least one performance metric; filtering the FV recommendations based on a plurality of performance-enhancing criteria of the seed campaign IO and the neighbor ad campaigns with respect to individual FV recommendations; and displaying the ranked FV recommendations to the advertiser for selection.
As thus, none of the cited reference discloses the claimed features of the independent claims1,11 and 18. Accordingly, the claims subject matter of claims 1-20 would be allowable over the prior art, if the applicant would be able to overcome the claim rejections under 35 USC 101 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure.
Nair et al, US Pub No: 2016/0371390 A1, teaches A system and method for deriving income from URL based context queries. A URL based user context query is received over a network from a user, wherein the user context comprises at least one user context criteria. A query is formulated based on the context criteria so as to search for user profile data, social network data, spatial data, temporal data, topical data and context query bid data that is available via the network and relates to the context so as to identify entries in a context query bid database that relate to user context criteria. A dynamic webpage is generated having content relating to the query and advertisements associated with the selected bid are inserted into the webpage. The dynamic webpage is transmitted to the user. The advertiser associated with the selected bid is charged a fee when a user interface event relating to the dynamic webpage occurs.
RAO et al, US Pub No:2015/0039420 A1, teaches A system can include a server that includes or is associated with a revenue analysis module. The module can be configured to receive user web browsing session data from a data source. The session data may include page view data, page interaction data, and page referral data. The module may also be configured to determine page referral events, revenue generating events, and relationships between the page referral events and the revenue generating events, according to at least part of the session data. The revenue generating events may include events in which a user interaction with the webpage generates revenue. The module may also be configured to determine revenue generated by the revenue generating events per page referral event of the page referral events, according to the relationships between the page referral events and the revenue generating events.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 files within TWO MONTHS from 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 mailing date of this final.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [M- R 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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 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.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights