DETAILED ACTION
The Preliminary Amendments and Remarks filed on 09/11/2024 have been considered. Claims 1-20 as amended are pending in the application.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preambles of claim 1 and claim 2 are missing a colon “:” after the word “comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 recites an “information processing device comprising a display processing unit.” The Specification of the instant application at paragraph [0095] expressly states: “The processing in the information processing devices 100 and 200 illustrated in Figs. 1 and 9 described above can be performed by hardware or by software” (emphasis added). Therefore, the “display processing unit” shown in Figures 1 and 9 can be performed by software. Accordingly, the “information processing device” is computer software per se, lacking any hardware to enable functionality to be realized. Software claimed by itself is non-statutory.
Claims 2-18 merely further define the functions performed by the “processing unit.” Thus, dependent claims 2-8 also fail to recite statutory subject matter.
Claim 20 recites a “program” for causing a computer to execute information processing. However, the program does not include at least one component that is necessarily a hardware component. The Specification of the instant application at paragraph [0095] expressly states: “The processing in the information processing devices 100 and 200 illustrated in Figs. 1 and 9 described above can be performed by hardware or by software” (emphasis added). Therefore, the information processing can be performed by software. Accordingly, the “program” lacks components that are necessarily hardware and is therefore, non-statutory.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites an information processing device comprising
a display processing unit that performs processing of displaying, on a basis of a result of topic analysis processing of identifying an ongoing topic on a basis of multiplex conversation data and giving a title indicating a summary of each topic, the ongoing topic using the title.
Limitation (a) , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic computer component. That is, other than reciting “a displaying processing unit,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “displaying processing unit” language, “performing processing of displaying, on a basis of a result of topic analysis processing of identifying an ongoing topic on a basis of multiplex conversation data and giving a title indicating a summary of each topic” in the context of this claim encompasses the user listening to a multiplex conversation, manually thinking about or making a judgement about the conversation to determine a topic of the conversation and thinking of and/or writing down a title for the topic of the conversation. The recited processing is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid to help them complete the recited processing, the use of a physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation because the claim merely uses a general-purpose display processing unit as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “a display processing unit.” The display processing unit is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. a generic display processing unit for processing displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial except does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a display processing unit” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component is insignificant extra-solution activity and cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, even when considered in combination, this additional element represents mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-20 are mere extensions or variations of the judicial exception, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity.
Additionally, please note that limitations directed to the “processing unit that performs processing of” a step do not necessarily amount to the performance of the step itself, only processing of the step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the ongoing topics” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although there is antecedent basis for “the ongoing topic,” there is no antecedent basis for “the ongoing topics” (emphasis added). In other words, antecedent basis is only provided for a singular ongoing topic and not a plurality of ongoing topics.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the individual user” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 17-18 depend upon claim 16 and therefore inherits the deficiency above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fowers et al. U.S. Patent 11,539,845 (hereinafter “Fowers”).
Referring to claim 1, Fowers teaches an information processing device comprising
a display processing unit that performs processing of displaying, on a basis of a result of topic analysis processing of identifying an ongoing topic on a basis of multiplex conversation data and giving a title indicating a summary of each topic, the ongoing topic using the title (processing audio from a meeting/conversation between users to determine a topic of the conversation; the topic is displayed using a title/keyword that is a summary of the meeting as shown in Figure 11) (column 4, lines 26-42 and column 9, line 41 – column 10, line 60).
Referring to claim 2, Fowers teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising
a voice processing unit that performs processing of making voices for each displayed topic audible in a direction and at a volume associated with a topic display position (the volume of the audio is variable based on the distance between the user and the conversation, which includes the displayed topics) (column 3, line 57 – column 4, line 1 and column 6 line 60 – column 7, line 12).
Referring to claim 3, Fowers teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein
in the topic analysis processing, processing of associating a participating user with each topic is further performed (determine users that are participating in the conversation associated with the topics; as shown in Figure 11 for example, the topic “Latest PR” is associated with participating users G, H, I and J) (column 9, line 41 – column 10, line 60), and
the display processing unit performs processing of further displaying a participating user associated with each displayed topic (Figure 11 shows the display of participating users G, H, I and J associated with the topic “Latest PR”) (column 9, line 41 – column 10, line 60).
Referring to claim 4, Fowers teaches the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein
the display processing unit displays the participating user using a face image, or displays the ongoing topic in a metaverse space and displays the participating user using an avatar (displaying a user identifier such as a name, image, video feed, etc.) (column 5, lines 53-62).
Referring to claim 5, Fowers teaches the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein
the display processing unit displays, on a basis of a result of topic classification processing of obtaining a degree of interest of an individual user in each topic, the ongoing topic in a manner as to make a level of the degree of interest of the individual user visible (determine the frequency or importance of topics in the conversation based on the interest of the user; topics that are more frequently used or more important may be displayed in a more dominant format, as shown in Figures 11-12 for example) (column 10, lines 7-17).
Referring to claim 6, Fowers teaches the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein
the display processing unit displays the ongoing topics side by side in a direction of a degree-of-interest axis in descending order of the level of the degree of interest of the individual user (as shown in Figures 11 and 12 for example, the topics are displayed vertically in order based on frequency or importance) (column 10, lines 7-17).
Referring to claim 8, Fowers teaches the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein
the display processing unit displays, on a basis of a result of topic classification processing of obtaining a degree of intimacy between the associated participating user and an individual user for each topic, the ongoing topic in a manner as to make a level of the degree of intimacy between the associated participating user and the individual user visible (for example, Figure 14 shows a degree of connection between user K and user C in the first conversation, which includes a plurality of topics) (column 11, lines 24-50).
Referring to claim 9, Fowers teaches the information processing device according to claim 8, wherein
the display processing unit displays the ongoing topics side by side in a direction of a degree-of-intimacy axis in descending order of the level of the level of the degree of intimacy between the associated participating user and the individual user (as shown in Figure 14 for example: the users, who can be displayed with the topics shown in Figure 12, are ordered vertically from the highest connection to the lowest connection, i.e. 1st to 3rd) (column 11, lines 24-50).
Referring to claim 10, Fowers teaches the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein
the display processing unit displays, on a basis of a result of topic classification processing of obtaining a degree of interest of an individual user (determine the frequency or importance of topics in the conversation based on the interest of the user) (column 10, lines 7-17) and obtaining a degree of intimacy between the associated participating user and the individual user for each topic (obtaining supplemental data such as a degree of connection between user K and user C in the first conversation, which includes a plurality of topics) (column 11, lines 24-50), the ongoing topic in a manner as to make a level of the degree of interest of the individual user and a level of the degree of intimacy between the associated participating user and the individual user visible (Figures 11-12 show topics that are more frequently used or more important may be displayed in a more dominant format; Figure 14 shows a degree of connection between user K and user C in the first conversation) (column 10, lines 7-17 and column 11, lines 24-50).
Referring to claim 19, Fowers teaches an information processing method comprising:
performing processing of identifying an ongoing topic on a basis of multiplex conversation data and giving a title indicating a summary of each topic (processing audio from a meeting/conversation between users to determine a topic of the conversation; the topic is displayed using a title/keyword that is a summary of the meeting as shown in Figure 11) (column 4, lines 26-42 and column 9, line 41 – column 10, line 60).
Referring to claim 20, Fowers teaches a program for causing a computer to execute an information processing method, the method comprising:
performing processing of identifying an ongoing topic on a basis of multiplex conversation data and giving a title indicating a summary of each topic (processing audio from a meeting/conversation between users to determine a topic of the conversation; the topic is displayed using a title/keyword that is a summary of the meeting as shown in Figure 11) (column 4, lines 26-42 and column 9, line 41 – column 10, line 60).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowers et al. U.S. Patent 11,539,845 (hereinafter “Fowers”), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view Ishida U.S. Publication 2013/0041898.
Referring to claim 7, Fowers teaches all of the limitations as applied to claim 5 above. However, although Fowers teaches wherein the display processing unit displays the participating user associated with each displayed topic using a face image (displaying a user identifier such as a name, image, video feed, etc.) (Fowers: column 5, lines 53-62), Fowers fails to explicitly teach wherein the display processing unit enlarges a face image of a participating user associated with a topic having a higher degree of interest. Similar to Fowers, Ishida also teaches displaying a participating user associated with each displayed topic using a face image (for example, Figure 13 shows face images 76 associated with displayed topics 78) (Ishida: paragraph [0094]). In addition, Ishida teaches wherein the display processing unit enlarges a face image of a participating user associated with a topic having a higher degree of interest (as shown in Figure 13 for example, a size of the first user image 76 associated with the first topic 78 having a higher interest score is larger than the other user images) (Ishida: paragraphs [0094]-[0096]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of the participating user associated with each topic using a face image taught by Fower to include enlarging a face image of a participating user associated with a topic having a higher degree of interest, as taught by Ishida. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to allow the face image to be displayed in a manner in accordance with the degree of user interest, which provides the user with a visual indication of degree of interest (Ishida: paragraph [0095]).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowers et al. U.S. Patent 11,539,845 (hereinafter “Fowers”), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view Peters et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0086393 (hereinafter “Peters”).
Referring to claim 11, Fowers teaches all of the limitations as applied to claim 10 above. However, Fowers fails to explicitly teach wherein the display processing unit arranges and displays the ongoing topic at a coordinate position in a two-dimensional coordinate system formed by a degree-of-interest axis and a degree-of-intimacy axis, the coordinate position being determined on a basis of the level of the degree of interest of the individual user and the level of the degree of intimacy between the associated participating user and the individual user. Similar to Fowers, Peters also teaches determining a degree-of interest and a degree-of-intimacy (determining a degree of interest, i.e. level of engagement, and a degree of intimacy, i.e. emotional valance) (Peters: paragraphs [0330]-[0331] and [0369]). In addition, Peters teaches wherein the display processing unit arranges and displays information at a coordinate position in a two-dimensional coordinate system formed by a degree-of-interest axis and a degree-of-intimacy axis (Figure 10D shows a two-dimensional coordinate system formed by a degree of interest y-axis and a degree of intimacy x-axis) (Peters: paragraphs [0330]-[0331] and [0369]), the coordinate position being determined on a basis of the level of the degree of interest of the individual user and the level of the degree of intimacy between the associated participating user and the individual user (individual users are shown along the y-axis based on the degree of interest, i.e. level of engagement from engaged to apathetic and along the x-axis based on the intimacy level, i.e. emotional valance from positive to negative) (Peters: paragraphs [0330]-[0331] and [0369]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of the ongoing topics based on the degree of interest and the degree of intimacy taught by Fowers to include displaying information in a two-dimensional coordinate system formed by a degree of interest axis and a degree of intimacy axis, as taught by Peters. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a summary plot that provides an “at a glance” summary of information (Peters: paragraph [0330]).
Claim(s) 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowers et al. U.S. Patent 11,539,845 (hereinafter “Fowers”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Kosslyn et al. U.S. Publication 8,990,352 (hereinafter “Kosslyn”).
Referring to claim 12, Fowers teaches all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Fowers teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the display processing unit performs processing of further displaying, on a basis of a result of suggestion processing of suggesting, to an individual user, participation in a different topic that is currently ongoing, the suggestion to participate in the different topic that is currently ongoing (as shown in Figure 19, conversation 230 is recommended to the user based on user interests obtained from other conversations) (Fowers: column 14, lines 1-46). However, Fowers fails to explicitly teach that the suggestion is in accordance with a degree of satisfaction with a topic in which the individual user is currently participating. Similar to Fowers, Kosslyn also displays suggestions for different content (displaying recommendations for content to the user) (Kosslyn: column 16, lines 29-42 and column 19, lines 9-23) . In addition, Kosslyn teaches that the suggestion is in accordance with a degree of satisfaction with a topic in which the individual user is currently participating (modifying the topic displayed to the user based on user reaction/feedback on the current topic) (Kosslyn: column 1, lines 32-64, column 19, lines 9-23, column 20, lines 33-42 and column 21, lines 1-58; this is further shown in Figures 5-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of displaying suggestions to participate in a different topic that is currently ongoing taught by Fowers to include suggesting content based on a degree of satisfaction with a topic in which the user is currently participating, as taught by Kosslyn. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide an evolving suggestion model that dynamically updates the suggestions provided to the user based on changing interests (Kosslyn: column 32-52).
Referring to claim 13, Fowers, as modified by Kosslyn, teaches the information processing device according to claim 12, wherein
in the suggestion processing, the degree of satisfaction is obtained on a basis of frequency of utterance of the individual user and/or physical information regarding the individual user (feedback includes context cues of the user such as user location, user reaction to content such as disapprovals, etc.) (Kosslyn: column 20, lines 23-42 and column 21, lines 12-20).
Referring to claim 14, Fowers, as modified by Kosslyn, teaches the information processing device according to the claim 12, wherein
in the suggestion processing, in a case where the degree of satisfaction with the topic in which the individual user is currently participating is lower than a threshold (content is provided to the user based on scores exceeding a threshold; user disapproval of the content causes the content to not be provided) (Kosslyn: column 7, lines 4 – column 8, line 31, column 16, lines 37-42, column 20, lines 23-42 and column 21, lines 12-20), and a degree of fitting with the different topic that is currently ongoing is higher than a degree of fitting with the topic in which the individual is currently participating, the participation in the different topic is suggested (the user can disapprove the current content, causing content with higher scores to be retrieved) (Kosslyn: column 7, lines 4 – column 8, line 31, column 16, lines 37-42, column 20, lines 23-42 and column 21, lines 12-20).
Referring to claim 15, Fowers, as modified by Kosslyn, teaches the information processing according to claim 14, wherein
in the suggestion processing, the degree of fitting is obtained on a basis of a degree of interest of the individual user in a topic and a degree of intimacy between a participating user associated with the topic and the individual user (scores for content are determined based on interestingness, social relevance and social networks including friends) (Kosslyn: column 7, lines 42-52, column 8, line 48 – column 9, line 4).
Referring to claim 16, Fowers teaches all of the limitations as applied claim 1 above. In addition, Fowers teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the display processing unit performs processing of further displaying, on a basis of a result of suggestion processing of suggesting a topic (as shown in Figure 19, conversation 230 is recommended to the user based on user interests obtained from other conversations) (Fowers: column 14, lines 1-46). However, Fowers fails to explicitly teach that the suggestion is in accordance with a degree of satisfaction with a topic in which the individual user is currently participating and that the suggestion of the topic is not currently ongoing. Similar to Fowers, Kosslyn also teaches displaying suggestions for different content (displaying recommendations for content to the user) (Kosslyn: column 16, lines 29-42 and column 19, lines 9-23). In addition, Kosslyn teaches that the suggestion is in accordance with a degree of satisfaction with a topic in which the individual user is currently participating (modifying the topic displayed to the user based on user reaction/feedback on the current topic) (Kosslyn: column 1, lines 32-64, column 19, lines 9-23, column 20, lines 33-42 and column 21, lines 1-58; this is further shown in Figures 5-8) and the suggestion of the topic is not currently ongoing (the suggested content includes content that is not ongoing, such as a post from Irene Allen 1 day ago) (Kosslyn: column 19, lines 1-61 and further shown in Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of displaying suggestions to participate in a topic taught by Fowers to include suggesting a content that is not currently ongoing based on a degree of satisfaction with a topic in which the user is currently participating, as taught by Kosslyn. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide an evolving suggestion model that dynamically updates the suggestions provided to the user based on changing interests (Kosslyn: column 32-52).
Referring to claim 17, Fowers, as modified by Kosslyn, teaches the information processing device according to claim 16, wherein
in the suggestion processing, in a case where the degree of satisfaction with the topic in which the individual user is currently participating is lower than a threshold (content is provided to the user based on scores exceeding a threshold; user disapproval of the content causes the content to not be provided) (Kosslyn: column 7, lines 4 – column 8, line 31, column 16, lines 37-42, column 20, lines 23-42 and column 21, lines 12-20), and a degree of satisfaction with a predetermined topic in which another user similar in attribute to the individual user participated in the past is higher than the threshold, the predetermined topic is suggested as the topic that is not currently ongoing (the user can disapprove the current content, causing content with higher scores to be retrieved; scores for content are determined based on social networks including friends; for example, content from users who are friends with the user receive higher scores/weight) (Kosslyn: column 7, lines 4 – column 8, line 31, column 8, line 48 – column 9, line 4, column 16, lines 37-42, column 20, lines 23-42 and column 21, lines 12-20).
Referring to claim 18, Fowers, as modified by Kosslyn, teaches the information processing device according to claim 16, wherein
in the suggestion processing, processing of further making, to the individual user, a suggestion to discuss the topic that is not currently ongoing together with a participating user having a highest degree of intimacy with the individual user among participating users participating in each currently ongoing topic is performed (the user can disapprove the current content, causing content with higher scores to be retrieved; scores for content are determined based on social networks including friends; for example, content from users who are friends with the user receive higher scores/weight) (Kosslyn: column 7, lines 4 – column 8, line 31, column 8, line 48 – column 9, line 4, column 16, lines 37-42, column 20, lines 23-42 and column 21, lines 12-20), and
the display processing unit performs processing of further displaying the suggestion to discuss the topic that is not currently ongoing together with the participating user having the highest degree of intimacy (displaying content with higher scores as suggestions; scores for content are determined based on social networks including friends; for example, content from users who are friends with the user receive higher scores/weight) (Kosslyn: column 7, lines 4 – column 8, line 31, column 8, line 48 – column 9, line 4, column 16, lines 37-42, column 20, lines 23-42 and column 21, lines 12-20).
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action. The documents cited therein (2020/0211534, 8230015, 2019/0378076 and 2016/0154898) provide similar teachings of identifying and displaying a list of topics of a conversation between a plurality of participants.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TING ZHOU LEE whose telephone number is (571). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 9AM – 1PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 27. 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.
/TING Z LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights