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 .
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, 3 – 8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claims 1,
Step One
Claims 1, 3 – 8, 14, and 15 are directed to an apparatus with structural component. Thus, the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim does not recite an abstract idea or any other judicial exception and therefore passes Step 2A, Prong of the Alice/Mayo analysis.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
a data collection module, stored in said storage device and accessible through said processor, configured to collect personality data of a target object;
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites:
an appearance video generation module, stored in said storage device and accessible through said processor, configured to utilize a face swapping software to extract pictures from said personality data to generate videos with appearance characteristics of said target object;
a voice generation module, stored in said storage device and accessible through said processor, configured to utilize a voice cloning software to extract audio data from said personality data, and to receive text responses from said virtual personality model to generate voice characteristics of said target object
a lip synchronization module, stored in said storage device and accessible through said processor, configured to utilize a lip synchronization software to ensure that mouth shape and voice of said digital persona generated by said virtual personality in combination with said appearance characteristics and said voice characteristic are synchronized and to generate interactive videos.
an interactive module, stored in said storage device and accessible through said processor, configured to provide an interactive interface and allow a user to interact with said virtual personality and receive responses from said virtual personality: wherein said virtual personality model is based on a transformer architecture and has a deep learning architecture for processing sequence data, which includes multiple layers of encoder and decoder with a self-attention mechanism used to capture long-range dependencies in said sequence data.
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim further recites:
a personality training module, stored in said storage device and accessible through said processor, configured to utilize a large language model and said personality data of said target object collected by said data collection module to train and generate a virtual personality model with personality characteristics of said target object, thereby generating a virtual personality consistent with said personality characteristics of said target object;
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The processor, storage device, data collection module, personality training module, appearance video generation module, voice generation module, lip synchronization module, interactive module, and transformer architecture are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In addition, the recitation of personality data, target object, face swapping software, voice cloning software, and lip synchronization software, and self-attention mechanism amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As such, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
a data collection module, stored in said storage device and accessible through said processor, configured to collect personality data of a target object;
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The limitations:
an appearance video generation module, stored in said storage device and accessible through said processor, configured to utilize a face swapping software to extract pictures from said personality data to generate videos with appearance characteristics of said target object;
a voice generation module, stored in said storage device and accessible through said processor, configured to utilize a voice cloning software to extract audio data from said personality data, and to receive text responses from said virtual personality model to generate voice characteristics of said target object
a lip synchronization module, stored in said storage device and accessible through said processor, configured to utilize a lip synchronization software to ensure that mouth shape and voice of said digital persona generated by said virtual personality in combination with said appearance characteristics and said voice characteristic are synchronized and to generate interactive videos.
an interactive module, stored in said storage device and accessible through said processor, configured to provide an interactive interface and allow a user to interact with said virtual personality and receive responses from said virtual personality: wherein said virtual personality model is based on a transformer architecture and has a deep learning architecture for processing sequence data, which includes multiple layers of encoder and decoder with a self-attention mechanism used to capture long-range dependencies in said sequence data.
are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
The claim further recites:
a personality training module, stored in said storage device and accessible through said processor, configured to utilize a large language model and said personality data of said target object collected by said data collection module to train and generate a virtual personality model with personality characteristics of said target object, thereby generating a virtual personality consistent with said personality characteristics of said target object;
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The processor, storage device, data collection module, personality training module, appearance video generation module, voice generation module, lip synchronization module, interactive module, and transformer architecture are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of personality data, target object, face swapping software, voice cloning software, and lip synchronization software, and self-attention mechanism amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 3, The recitation of “wherein said target object is a real person or a virtual idol” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As to claim 4, The recitation of “wherein said personality data of said target object includes appearance, voice, and text data of said target object.” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As to claim 3,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim does not recite an abstract idea or any other judicial exception and therefore passes Step 2A, Prong of the Alice/Mayo analysis.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein said personality training module includes:
wherein said target object is a real person or a virtual idol
The model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein said personality training module includes:
wherein said target object is a real person or a virtual idol
These additional elements of do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.5(h)(vi):
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 4,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim does not recite an abstract idea or any other judicial exception and therefore passes Step 2A, Prong of the Alice/Mayo analysis.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein said personality training module includes:
wherein said personality data of said target object includes appearance, voice, and text data of said target object
The model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein said personality training module includes:
wherein said personality data of said target object includes appearance, voice, and text data of said target object
These additional elements of do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.5(h)(vi):
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 5,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim does not recite an abstract idea or any other judicial exception and therefore passes Step 2A, Prong of the Alice/Mayo analysis.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein said personality training module includes:
a data collection and analysis module, configured to, receive and analyze said personality data of said target object by said data collection module to obtain processed text data of said target object;
a long-term memory data, configured to connect said virtual personality model for receiving and storing said processed text data of said targe object, and to jointly utilize said large language model connected to said virtual personality model and said processed text data to train said virtual personality model so that it can generate a virtual personality and dialogue matching said target object;
a short-term memory data, configured to connect said virtual personality model, used to receive said virtual personality and dialogue matching said targe object to update iterative training data, enabling said conversational apparatus to maintain coherence with previous dialogues
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites data collection and analysis module and conversational apparatus which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In addition, the recitation of long-term memory data and short-term memory data amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As such, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein said personality training module includes:
a data collection and analysis module, configured to, receive and analyze said personality data of said target object by said data collection module to obtain processed text data of said target object;
a long-term memory data, configured to connect said virtual personality model for receiving and storing said processed text data of said targe object, and to jointly utilize said large language model connected to said virtual personality model and said processed text data to train said virtual personality model so that it can generate a virtual personality and dialogue matching said target object;
a short-term memory data, configured to connect said virtual personality model, used to receive said virtual personality and dialogue matching said targe object to update iterative training data, enabling said conversational apparatus to maintain coherence with previous dialogues
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim further recites data collection and analysis module and conversational apparatus which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In addition, the recitation of long-term memory data and short-term memory data amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As such, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 6,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein said personality training modules further includes a prompt input interface configured to input prompts, to simulate conversation style and knowledge background of said target object
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of a generic computer. As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process.In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Further the claim does not include additional elements that integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. “Inputting” is performed using generic computer components performing their typical functions and does not provide a meaningful technological improvement.
The claim further recites an input interface which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Nothing in the claim adds “significantly more” beyond generic computing.
The claim further recites an input interface which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 7,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein personality of said target object is input through said prompt input interface connected with said virtual personality model.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of a generic computer. As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process.In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Further the claim does not include additional elements that integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. “Inputting” is performed using generic computer components performing their typical functions and does not provide a meaningful technological improvement.
The claim further recites an input interface which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Nothing in the claim adds “significantly more” beyond generic computing.
The claim further recites an input interface which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 8,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim does not recite an abstract idea or any other judicial exception and therefore passes Step 2A, Prong of the Alice/Mayo analysis.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein said personality training module includes:
wherein said large language model includes Chatgpt, LLaMA, and Bard
The model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein said personality training module includes:
wherein said large language model includes Chatgpt, LLaMA, and Bard
These additional elements of do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.5(h)(vi):
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 14,
As to claims 1,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim does not recite an abstract idea or any other judicial exception and therefore passes Step 2A, Prong of the Alice/Mayo analysis.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
collecting photos, audio and said text data of said target object from public sources by said data collection module;
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites:
creating appearance and voice characteristics of said target object through extracting said photos and said audio of said target object by respectively using said face swapping software from said appearance video generation module and said voice cloning software from said voice generation module;
ensuring that said digital persona can keep its mouth shape and voice in
synchronized by said lip synchronizing software from said lip synchronization module.
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim further recites:
training and generating said virtual personality model with said personality
characteristics of said target object by utilizing said personality training module based on said large language model to input said text data of said target object, to produce said virtual personality matching said personal characteristics of said target object;
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
collecting photos, audio and said text data of said target object from public sources by said data collection module;
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The limitations:
creating appearance and voice characteristics of said target object through extracting said photos and said audio of said target object by respectively using said face swapping software from said appearance video generation module and said voice cloning software from said voice generation module;
ensuring that said digital persona can keep its mouth shape and voice in
synchronized by said lip synchronizing software from said lip synchronization module.
are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
The claim further recites:
training and generating said virtual personality model with said personality
characteristics of said target object by utilizing said personality training module based on said large language model to input said text data of said target object, to produce said virtual personality matching said personal characteristics of said target object;
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
As to claim 15,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
allowing said users to interact with said virtual personality by providing an interactive interface from said interactive module and to obtain responses.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of a generic computer. As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Further the claim does not include additional elements that integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. “Interacting” is performed using generic computer components performing their typical functions and does not provide a meaningful technological improvement.
The claim further recites an input interface which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Nothing in the claim adds “significantly more” beyond generic computing.
The claim further recites an input interface which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuta et al (US 11,461,948) teaches system and method voice driven animation of an object in an image by sampling an input video, depicting a puppet object, to obtain an image, receiving audio data, extracting voice related features from the audio data, producing an expression representation based on the voice related features, wherein the expression representation is related to a region of interest, obtaining from the image, auxiliary data related to the image and generating a target image based on the expression representation and the auxiliary data.
Kuta et al does not disclose or suggest obvious a lip synchronization module, stored in said storage device and accessible through said processor, configured to utilize a lip synchronization software to ensure that mouth shape and voice of said digital persona generated by said virtual personality in combination with said appearance characteristics and said voice characteristic are synchronized and to generate interactive videos; and an interactive module, stored in said storage device and accessible through said processor, configured to provide an interactive interface and allow a user to interact with said virtual personality and receive responses from said virtual personality: wherein said virtual personality model is based on a transformer architecture and has a deep learning architecture for processing sequence data, which includes multiple layers of encoder and decoder with a self-attention mechanism used to capture long-range dependencies in said sequence data, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
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, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128