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 the Application
The following is a Final Office Action.
In response to Examiner's communication of 1/28/2026, Applicant responded on 4/12/2026. Amended claim 1, 13. Cancelled claims 10-11.
Claims 1-9, 12-13 are pending in this application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 13 are not sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous action.
Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 13 are not sufficient to overcome the prior art rejections set forth in the previous action.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits, “…The independent claims recite operating a CSHAP module that retrieves interactions and associated metadata yielded from monitored and recorded real-time data streams, determines concurrency, determines presence of defocused events versus focused events, and computes a score based on attributes including focused-event time. The Office Action characterizes the claims at a high level as a mental process and a mathematical calculation. Even assuming arguendo that a judicial exception is implicated, the amended independent claims are not “directed to” the exception because they integrate any alleged exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2).….As amended, independent claims 1 and 13 recite that the computed CSHAP score is sent to one or more applications for follow-up actions, including an Automated Call Distribution (ACD) system that changes attributes of routing skills of the agent based on the CSHAP score. This is a concrete system-level action in a contact-center technical environment that changes how subsequent interactions are routed and handled via routing-skill attributes. The disclosure/claim set describes routing-related follow-up actions based on the CSHAP score. The claims likewise do not merely recite generic data gathering. The recited retrieving, checking, calculating, storing, and sending steps form part of an ordered technical pipeline operating on monitored real-time interaction data and metadata. The specification describes real-time monitoring and recording of interactions, event generation, event processing/transformation, structured storage of the processed events, and use of thread focused and thread unfocused events and transition scenarios in the determination flow. Accordingly, the claims do not merely “organize” or “evaluate” human activity, nor do they recite only post-solution reporting. Rather, they apply the computed metric to automatically control routing-skill attributes in an ACD system in a manner that is integrated into the operation of the contact-center system. The claimed processing is tied to a specific contact-center computing environment and produces a concrete downstream operational change in the ACD system… the amended independent claims recite an ordered combination that goes beyond generic implementation by requiring (i) monitoring/recording real-time data streams yielding metadata, (ii) distinguishing defocused events from focused events as claimed, (iii) computing a proficiency score using focused-event time in the interaction, and (iv) automatically changing ACD routing-skill attributes based on that score. This combination is not merely “apply it” and provides a concrete technical effect in the contact-center computing environment. That ordered combination is not a generic “apply it on a computer” implementation. The specification describes a concrete event-driven architecture in which chat activities are monitored in real time, event types such as “Thread Focused” and “Thread unfocused” are generated and processed, and the resulting metadata is used for downstream evaluation and system improvement. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the § 101 rejection be withdrawn…” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims and the argued elements, are directed to, …determines concurrency, determines presence of defocused events versus focused events, and computes a score based on attributes including focused-event time…the computed CSHAP score is … for follow-up actions, … that changes attributes of routing skills of the agent…, is a problem directed to mental process (i.e. human mentally managing human agents’ ability to focus and proficiency at chatting with human customers and assign follow-work to human agents based on human agent skill scores determined by mathematical concepts), organizing human activities (i.e. human mentally managing human agents’ ability to focus and proficiency at chatting with human customers and assign follow-work to human agents based on human agent skill scores determined by mathematical concepts), mathematical concepts (i.e. human mentally managing human agents’ ability to focus and proficiency at chatting with human customers and assign follow-work to human agents based on human agent skill scores determined by mathematical concepts), as established in Step 2A Prong 1. This problem does not specifically arise in the realm of computer technology, but rather, this problem existed and was addressed long before the advent of computers. Thus, the claims do not recite a technical improvement to a technical problem. Additionally, pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, as an ordered combination, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea, and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components, i.e. computer. Further, these additional elements generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment, namely the environment of a computer and call center ACD, performing extra solution activities. Therefore, as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application in Step 2A Prong 2 (apply it and general link) or amount to significantly more in Step 2B (apply it and WURC).
Even novel and newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. July 2015 Update, p. 3; see SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 2 (Fed Cir. May 15, 2018).
Simply reciting specific limitations that narrow the abstract idea does not make an abstract idea non-abstract. 79 Fed. Reg. 74631; buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (2014); see SAP America at p. 12. As discussed in SAP America, no matter how much of an advance the claims recite, when “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm,” “[a]n advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.” Id. at p. 3.
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures “can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary.” 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of “anonymous loan shopping” recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be “performed by humans without a computer”).
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments – Prior Art
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. However, Applicant’s amendments are sufficient in overcoming the cited prior art references.
The closest prior art are US Patent Publication to US20150334233A1 to O'Connor et al., (hereinafter referred to as “O'Connor”) in view of US Patent Publication to US20180091654A1 to Miller et al., (hereinafter referred to as “Miller”)
However, the teachings of the references do not teach the specific ordered sequence of limitations of independent claims 1, 13,
operating a Concurrent Sessions Handling Agent Proficiency (CSHAP) module, said CSHAP module comprising:
(a) operating an interactions module to retrieve one or more interactions and metadata thereof of the agent during a preconfigured period from the data store of interactions wherein said one or more interactions were monitored and recorded to collect real-time data streams of each interaction in the one or more interactions and yield the metadata;
(b) for each interaction of the one or more retrieved interactions, determining if the interaction has been handled with concurrent different interactions during the preconfigured period via one or more channel types, based on the yielded metadata;
(c) for each determined interaction as handled with concurrent different interactions, checking in the metadata if the interaction has one or more defocused events, wherein the determining is based on a first key characteristics of defocused events and a second key characteristics of focus events, and wherein defocused events are inactive-time events of an agent and a customer during the interaction and focused events are active-time events of the agent and the customer via a chat window;
(d) calculating a CSHAP score for the agent based on one or more attributes from the metadata of the interaction to provide an indication as to an ability of the agent to address different concurrent customer sessions via one or more channel types, wherein the CSHAP is calculated based on a total number of concurrent different interactions handled by the agent during the preconfigured period, customer sentiment or feedback score for each interaction in the total number of concurrent different interaction, total time taken to handle each interaction and a total time of one or more focused events during each interaction in the total number of concurrent different interaction;
(e) storing the calculated CSHAP score in the data store of agents; and
(f) sending the CSHAP score to one or more applications, to take one or more follow-up actions based on the CSHAP score,
wherein one application of the one or more applications is an Automated Call Distribution (ACD) system, and
wherein the one or more follow-up actions of the ACD system based on the CSHAP score includes changing attributes of routing skills of the agent.
No Non-Patent literature teach the specific ordered sequence of limitations of independent claims 1, 13.
The prior art rejection is hereby withdrawn.
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 1-9, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 (similarly 13) recite, “A …-method for determining an agent proficiency when addressing concurrent customer sessions via one or more channel types and utilization thereof, the …-method comprising:
operating a Concurrent Sessions Handling Agent Proficiency (CSHAP) …, said CSHAP … comprising:
(a) operating an interactions … to retrieve one or more interactions and metadata thereof of the agent during a preconfigured period from the data store of interactions
wherein said one or more interactions were monitored and recorded to collect real-time data streams of each interaction in the one or more interactions and yield the metadata;
(b) for each interaction of the one or more retrieved interactions, determining if the interaction has been handled with concurrent different interactions during the preconfigured period via one or more channels types, based on the yielded metadata;
(c) for each determined interaction as handled with concurrent different interactions checking in the metadata if the interaction has one or more defocused events,
wherein the determining is based on a first key characteristics of defocused events and a second key characteristics of focus events, and
wherein defocused events are inactive-time events of an agent and a customer during the interaction and focused events are active-time events of the agent and the customer via a chat …;
(d) calculating a CSHAP score for the agent based on one or more attribute from the metadata of the interaction to provide an indication as to an ability of the agent to address different concurrent customer sessions via one or more channel types,
wherein the CSHAP is calculated based on a total number of concurrent different interactions handled by the agent during the preconfigured period, customer sentiment or feedback score for each interaction in the total number of concurrent different interaction, total time taken to handle each interaction and a total time of one or more focused events during each interaction in the total number of concurrent different interaction;
(e) storing the calculated CSHAP score in the data store of agents; and
(f) sending the CSHAP score to one or more …, to take one or more follow-up actions base on the CSHAP score.
…, and
wherein the one or more follow-up actions of the … based on the CSHAP score includes changing attributes of routing skills of the agent.”
Analyzing under Step 2A, Prong 1:
The limitations regarding, …determining an agent proficiency when addressing concurrent customer sessions via one or more channel types and utilization thereof, the …-method comprising: operating a Concurrent Sessions Handling Agent Proficiency (CSHAP) …, said CSHAP … comprising: operating an interactions … to retrieve one or more interactions and metadata thereof of the agent during a preconfigured period from the data store of interactions…wherein said one or more interactions were monitored and recorded to collect real-time data streams of each interaction in the one or more interactions and yield the metadata; for each interaction of the one or more retrieved interactions, determining if the interaction has been handled with concurrent different interactions during the preconfigured period via one or more channels types, based on the yielded metadata; for each determined interaction as handled with concurrent different interactions checking in the metadata if the interaction has one or more defocused events, wherein the determining is based on a first key characteristics of defocused events and a second key characteristics of focus events, and …wherein defocused events are inactive-time events of an agent and a customer during the interaction and focused events are active-time events of the agent and the customer via a chat window; calculating a CSHAP score for the agent based on one or more attribute from the metadata of the interaction to provide an indication as to an ability of the agent to address different concurrent customer sessions via one or more channel types, wherein the CSHAP is calculated based on a total number of concurrent different interactions handled by the agent during the preconfigured period, customer sentiment or feedback score for each interaction in the total number of concurrent different interaction, total time taken to handle each interaction and a total time of one or more focused events during each interaction in the total number of concurrent different interaction; storing the calculated CSHAP score in the data store of agents; and sending the CSHAP score to one or more …, to take one or more follow-up actions base on the CSHAP score…the one or more follow-up actions of the … based on the CSHAP score includes changing attributes of routing skills of the agent…, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, can include a human using their mind and using pen and paper to perform the above identified limitations; therefore, the claims are directed to a mental process.
Further, …determining an agent proficiency when addressing concurrent customer sessions via one or more channel types and utilization thereof, the …-method comprising: operating a Concurrent Sessions Handling Agent Proficiency (CSHAP) …, said CSHAP … comprising: operating an interactions … to retrieve one or more interactions and metadata thereof of the agent during a preconfigured period from the data store of interactions…wherein said one or more interactions were monitored and recorded to collect real-time data streams of each interaction in the one or more interactions and yield the metadata; for each interaction of the one or more retrieved interactions, determining if the interaction has been handled with concurrent different interactions during the preconfigured period via one or more channels types, based on the yielded metadata; for each determined interaction as handled with concurrent different interactions checking in the metadata if the interaction has one or more defocused events, wherein the determining is based on a first key characteristics of defocused events and a second key characteristics of focus events, and …wherein defocused events are inactive-time events of an agent and a customer during the interaction and focused events are active-time events of the agent and the customer via a chat …; calculating a CSHAP score for the agent based on one or more attribute from the metadata of the interaction to provide an indication as to an ability of the agent to address different concurrent customer sessions via one or more channel types, wherein the CSHAP is calculated based on a total number of concurrent different interactions handled by the agent during the preconfigured period, customer sentiment or feedback score for each interaction in the total number of concurrent different interaction, total time taken to handle each interaction and a total time of one or more focused events during each interaction in the total number of concurrent different interaction; storing the calculated CSHAP score in the data store of agents; and sending the CSHAP score to one or more …, to take one or more follow-up actions base on the CSHAP score…the one or more follow-up actions of the … based on the CSHAP score includes changing attributes of routing skills of the agent…, are human managing human agents’ ability to focus and proficiency at chatting with human customers, which are managing interactions between people, therefore the claims, are directed to certain methods of organizing human activities.
Additionally, …determining an agent proficiency when addressing concurrent customer sessions via one or more channel types and utilization thereof, the …-method comprising: operating a Concurrent Sessions Handling Agent Proficiency (CSHAP) …, said CSHAP … comprising: operating an interactions … to retrieve one or more interactions and metadata thereof of the agent during a preconfigured period from the data store of interactions…wherein said one or more interactions were monitored and recorded to collect real-time data streams of each interaction in the one or more interactions and yield the metadata; for each interaction of the one or more retrieved interactions, determining if the interaction has been handled with concurrent different interactions during the preconfigured period via one or more channels types, based on the yielded metadata; for each determined interaction as handled with concurrent different interactions checking in the metadata if the interaction has one or more defocused events, wherein the determining is based on a first key characteristics of defocused events and a second key characteristics of focus events, and …wherein defocused events are inactive-time events of an agent and a customer during the interaction and focused events are active-time events of the agent and the customer via a chat …; calculating a CSHAP score for the agent based on one or more attribute from the metadata of the interaction to provide an indication as to an ability of the agent to address different concurrent customer sessions via one or more channel types, wherein the CSHAP is calculated based on a total number of concurrent different interactions handled by the agent during the preconfigured period, customer sentiment or feedback score for each interaction in the total number of concurrent different interaction, total time taken to handle each interaction and a total time of one or more focused events during each interaction in the total number of concurrent different interaction; storing the calculated CSHAP score in the data store of agents; and sending the CSHAP score to one or more …, to take one or more follow-up actions base on the CSHAP score…the one or more follow-up actions of the … based on the CSHAP score includes changing attributes of routing skills of the agent…, is mathematical concepts.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to a mental process, certain methods of organizing human activities, mathematical concepts, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
Analyzing under Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A.
In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea identified under Step 2A, Prong 1, such as:
Claim 1, 13: computerized, module, chat window, applications, computerized-system comprising: one or more processors; a data store of interactions; a data store of agents; and a memory to store the data stores, said one or more processors are configured to, application of the one or more applications is an Automated Call Distribution (ACD) system
Claim 5: gamification application
Claim 8: Quality Management (QM) application
Claim 12: cloud computing environment
, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, as an ordered combination, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea, and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components.
Further, these additional elements generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment, namely the environment of a computer and a call center, and the chat window is an additional element that can be overserved and evaluated by humans visually and mentally.
Additionally, with respect to, “…to retrieve…”, “…monitored and recorded to collect…”, “…storing…”, “…sending…”, these elements do not add a meaningful limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are extra-solution activity, pre and post solution activity - i.e. data gathering – “…to retrieve…”, “…monitored and recorded to collect…”, “…storing…”, data output – “…sending…”
Analyzing under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because, as an order combination, the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it).
Additionally, as an order combination, the additional elements append the recited abstract idea to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field as individually evinced by the applicant’s own disclosure, as required by the Berkheimer Memo, in at least:
[0025]In the following detailed description, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the disclosure. However, it will be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that the disclosure may be practiced without these specific details. In other instances, well-known methods, procedures, components, modules, units and/or circuits have not been described in detail so as not to obscure the disclosure.
[0034]According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, a computerized system, such as system 100A may include one or more processors 130, a data store, such as data store of interactions 120, a data store such as data store of agents 125, and a memory 110 to store the data stores. The one or more processors 130 may operate for each agent in the data store of agents 125, a module, such as Concurrent Sessions Handling Agent Proficiency (CSHAP) module 135, and such as module CSHAP 200 in Figs. 2A-2B.
[0074]According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, one application of the one or more applications may be a gamification application, a Quality Management (QM) application or an Automated Call Distribution (ACD) system, as shown in Fig. 1B.
[0075]According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, when system 100A is operating in a cloud computing environment, before operating the CSHAP module 135 the system 100A may further comprise selecting a tenant from a data store of tenants to operate the CSHAP module 135 for each agent in the data store of agents of the selected tenant.
[0078]According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, a computerized system, such as system 100B may include all the components of system 100A, which are one or more processors 130, a data store, such as data store of interactions 120, a data store such as data store of agents 125; and a memory 110 to store the data stores. The one or more processors 130 may operate for each agent in the data store of agents 125, a module, such as Concurrent Sessions Handling Agent Proficiency (CSHAP) module 135, and such as module CSHAP 200, in Figs. 2A-2B.
[0091]According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, one application of the one or more applications may be an Automated Call Distribution (ACD) system 140c.
[0092]According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, agents may have skills assigned based on their technical expertise such as basic support, advanced support, billing and the like. Interactions may be routed based on skill needed. The follow-up actions of the ACD system 140c based on the CSHAP score may be for example adding a new skill category such as network security issues, and updating the agent profile to include that skill or include that skill and remove an existing skill.
[0119] According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, a threshold may be provided by QM application 540 to check if the agent CSHAP score is below a threshold 530. When the CSHAP score is below the threshold the agent may need a coaching package assignment 550 which may be assigned out of existing packages by a user, such as a manager, e.g. coaching packages 560a-560c.
[00121]Similarly, it should be understood that, unless indicated otherwise, the illustrated order of execution of the operations represented by blocks of any flowchart referenced herein has been selected for convenience and clarity only. Operations of the illustrated method may be executed in an alternative order, or concurrently, with equivalent results. Such reordering of operations of the illustrated method should be understood as representing other embodiments of the illustrated method.
[00122]Different embodiments are disclosed herein. Features of certain embodiments may be combined with features of other embodiments; thus, certain embodiments may be combinations of features of multiple embodiments. The foregoing description of the embodiments of the disclosure has been presented for the purposes of illustration and description. It is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the disclosure to the precise form disclosed. It should be appreciated by persons skilled in the art that many modifications, variations, substitutions, changes, and equivalents are possible in light of the above teaching. It is, therefore, to be understood that the appended claims are intended to cover all such modifications and changes as fall within the true spirit of the disclosure.
[00123]While certain features of the disclosure have been illustrated and described herein, many modifications, substitutions, changes, and equivalents will now occur to those of ordinary skill in the art. It is, therefore, to be understood that the appended claims are intended to cover all such modifications and changes as fall within the true spirit of the disclosure.
Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Moreover, the remaining elements of dependent claims do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these remaining elements merely recite further abstract limitations that provide nothing more than simply a narrowing of the abstract idea recited in the independent claims.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components to “apply” the recited abstract idea, perform insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-9, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PO HAN MAX LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3821. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 8:00 am - 7:00 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, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. 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.
/PO HAN LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights