DETAILED ACTION
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63596695, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The Specification as originally filed on 07 November 2023 does not fairly disclose or suggest various “means” limitations, as recited in claims 8-13.
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 8,10-13 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 limitation “means for” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Specification as originally filed on 26 September 2024 does not fairly disclose or suggest any associated structure for performing the recited functionality, and does not clearly link any disclosed structure to the recited means.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 8, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 8, 10-13 are rejected for the same rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein. In particular, the Specification as originally filed does not provide adequate written description support for the recited “means” limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3-8,10-14 and 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving an input common data element and one or more associated input values;
generating a radiology passage based on the input common data element and the one or more associated input values using a trained language model; and
outputting the generated radiology passage,
wherein the trained language model is trained by:
receiving text-based radiological data comprising one or more passages;
extracting a concept from each of the one or more passages;
for each respective passage of the one or more passages, mapping the concept extracted from the respective passage to a common data element and one or more associated values, thereby resulting in pairs of 1) the respective passage and 2) the common data element and the one or more associated values; and
training the language model for generating the radiology passage based on the pairs of 1) the passages and 2) the common data elements and the one or more associated values.
Step 1:
The claim as a whole falls within at least one statutory category, i.e. a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A Prong One:
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” because the step of generating a radiology passage based on data is traditionally performed by a physician when treating a patient, i.e. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Mental processes”.
But for a generic computer recited with a high level of generality in a post hoc manner, the generating, extracting, and mapping steps may be performed in the human mind either mentally or with pen and paper, e.g. by looking at the data and thinking about the result).
Accordingly, these limitations have been found to be directed towards concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The different categories of abstract ideas are being considered together as one single abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(II)(B)
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim(s) 3-7 reciting limitations further defining the abstract idea, which may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components, and/or may be a method of managing relationship or interactions between people).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s), if any:
receiving an input common data element and one or more associated input values;
using a trained language model; and
outputting the generated radiology passage,
wherein the trained language model is trained by:
receiving text-based radiological data comprising one or more passages; and
training the language model for generating the radiology passage based on the pairs of 1) the passages and 2) the common data elements and the one or more associated values.
The additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se.
Regarding the trained language model, this limitation amount(s) to mere instructions to apply an exception (invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea) and provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. The trained language model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the trained language model functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “generating a radiology passage” and do not include any details about how the “generating” is accomplished. MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding the steps of receiving and outputting data, these steps are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and merely add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application). MPEP 2106.05(g))
Similarly, regarding the training step, this step has been recited with a high level of generality, and merely add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, i.e. merely specifying that the model is trained with particular data without specifying how the training is accomplished or how the data is used in the training.
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which amount to limitation(s) consistent with the additional element(s) in the independent claims (such as claim(s) 3-7 reciting using the trained language model in a generic manner (additional limitation(s) which amount(s) to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea) and receiving/outputting data (additional limitation(s) which add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The additional elements, as discussed above and incorporated herein, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking to a particular technological environment using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The steps of receiving and outputting data amount(s) to element(s) that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity in particular fields (e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii))
Regarding the training step, Lo (20200387635) discloses that a variety of NLP machine training techniques are WURC activity in the pertinent fields (page 8 paragraph 0100).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claim(s) 3-7 reciting receiving/outputting data; e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii))
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 8,10-14 and 16-22 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 1, 2-7 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1,3-8,10-14 and 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lo (20200387635).
Claim 1: Lo discloses:
A computer-implemented (Abstract illustrating a computer) method (page 1 paragraph 0007 illustrating a method) comprising:
receiving an input common data element (Figure 1 label 12 illustrating entering a medical report in a common format [considered to be forms of “data element” in common because the report contains numerous amounts of data in a standardized format]) and one or more associated input values (Figure 1 label 13-14 illustrating entering a plurality of annotations and user-defined rules [considered to be a form of “input values”]);
generating a radiology passage (page 7 paragraph 0082 illustrating generating an anonymized version of a radiology report [considered to be a form of “passage”]) based on the input common data element and the one or more associated input values (page 7 paragraph 0082, Figure 1 illustrating using the common report format and other entered data, as discussed above and incorporated herein) using a trained language model (page 8 paragraph 0100 illustrating a NLP model); and
outputting the generated radiology passage (page 7 paragraph 0082 illustrating outputting the anonymized report),
wherein the trained language model is trained by:
receiving text-based radiological data comprising one or more passages (page 5 paragraph 0063 illustrating receiving text comprising a plurality of information [considered to be a form of “passages”[);
extracting a concept from each of the one or more passages (page 5 paragraph 0063 illustrating identifying the data as a type of data, e.g. diagnosis, prognosis, test [considered to be a form of “concept”]);
for each respective passage of the one or more passages, mapping the concept extracted from the respective passage to a common data element and one or more associated values, thereby resulting in pairs of 1) the respective passage and 2) the common data element and the one or more associated values (page 5 paragraph 0063 illustrating creating pairs of type of data with the text data [considered to be a form of “mapping”]); and
training the language model for generating the radiology passage based on the pairs of 1) the passages and 2) the common data elements and the one or more associated values (page 5 paragraph 0063 illustrating using the identified type of data and associated text to train the NLP model).
Claim 3: Lo discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Lo further discloses:
wherein training the language model for generating the radiology passage based on the pairs of 1) the passages and 2) the common data elements and the one or more associated values comprises:
fine-tuning the language model via instruction tuning based on the pairs of 1) the passages and 2) the common data elements and the one or more associated values comprises (page 9 paragraph 0113 illustrating fine tuning the NPL based on the identified PHI/non-PHI text data as discussed with respect to claim 2 above, and incorporated herein).
Claim 4: Lo discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Lo further discloses:
wherein training the language model for generating the radiology passage based on the pairs of 1) the passages and 2) the common data elements and the one or more associated values comprises:
training the language model via reinforcement learning by evaluating the common data elements against passaged generated by the language model (page 6 paragraph 0075 illustrating generating ground truth PHI text from the input medical report for use in training the NPL model [considered to be a form of “reinforcement learning”] by comparing the ground truth generated by the NPL model against portions of the reports identified by the NPL model).
Claim 5: Lo discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Lo further discloses:
wherein mapping the concept extracted from the respective passage to a common data element and one or more associated values comprises:
in response to determining that the common data element is not available for mapping, mapping the concept extracted from the respective passage to an entity of an ontology (page 1 paragraph 0003 illustrating identifying name-entity recognition [considered to be a form of “ontology”] for data not known by the system [considered to be a form of “common data element not available”]).
Claim 6: Lo discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 5, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Lo further discloses:
wherein mapping the concept extracted from the respective passage to an entity of an ontology comprises:
determining a ranking of entities for the ontology from each of a plurality of entity linking models based on the concept extracted from the respective passage (page 6 paragraph 0073 illustrating determining that a word pair would rank higher than a single word in the pair as being a technical concept and not a name); and
determining the entity of the ontology based on the ranking of the entities (page 6 paragraph 0073 illustrating identifying the pair of words as belonging to a different context rather than each single word belonging to separate contexts).
Claim 7: Lo discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Lo further discloses:
wherein:
extracting a concept from each of the one or more passages comprises encoding each of the one or more passages into features using a machine learning based encoder network (page 6 paragraph 0073 illustrating the NLP tagging each text data [considered to be a form of “encoding”]); and
mapping the concept extracted from the respective passage to a common data element and one or more associated values comprises classifying the concept to a common data element and the one or more associated values using a machine learning based classifier model (page 6 paragraph 0073 illustrating an NLP classifier model).
Claim(s) 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 3, 4, 7, 2, 3, 4, 1 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
In particular, Lo discloses a computer apparatus and associated software/hardware structure for performing the recited functionality of claim 1 (Figure 1).
Lo also discloses computer storage medium for storing software thereon to perform the same (page 9 paragraph 0121).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks filed on 13 January 2026, Applicant makes numerous arguments. Examiner will address these arguments in the order presented.
On page 8 Applicant argues that the Specification as originally filed in application 63596695 provide adequate written description support for the various “means for” limitations.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, they are not found persuasive because the cited portions do not link any disclosed structure to the claimed “means for” limitations.
On page 9 Applicant argues that the Specification as originally filed provides adequate written description support for the various “means for” limitations.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, they are not found persuasive because the cited portions do not link any disclosed structure to the claimed “means for” limitations.
While Applicant makes various assertion regarding how the disclosed structure is correlated to the claimed “means for” limitations, the Specification is silent regarding how the disclosed structure would be correlated to the claimed limitations.
On page 10-12 Applicant argues that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, they are not considered persuasive for at least the reasons stated in the section above, and incorporated herein. Namely, the highlighted portions of claim 1, for example, are directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
It is noted that Applicant argues that training a language model cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Examiner agrees, and has treated this limitation as an additional element.
On page 12-14 Applicant argues that the claims provide eligible subject matter, namely, through training a language model to provide a technical solution.
While Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, they are not found persuasive because the additional elements merely provide insignificant extrasolution activity or generic computer functions (i.e. “apply it”), as discussed in the section above and incorporated herein.
On page 14-15 Applicant argues that the additional elements are not WURC in the art.
It is noted that the steps of sending/receiving data are found to be WURC by the courts, and the step of training data has been found to be WURC by the applied art, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
On page 16-17 Applicant argues that Lo does not disclose various features of claim 1.
As a preliminary matter, while Applicant on page 16 asserts that Lo discloses using machine learning/AI to anonymize medical data, this application of ML/AI does not preclude Lo from disclosing the claimed limitations, as follows.
On page 17 Applicant argues that Lo does not disclose common data elements.
While Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, they are not persuasive because neither the Specification in any priority document or originally filed specifically define “common data element”. While the Priority Specification makes several mentions of “Common Data Elements”, these disclosures do not provide any controlling definition.
As can be best understood, a “common data element” is a data element that appears in multiple patient records. Accordingly, Lo discloses using test results, for example. Because test results can appear in multiple patient records, this is a form of “common” data element and associated value for the test results.
Regarding the argued “passage”, neither the claims nor Specification specifically define what the passage is.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered under the broadest reasonable interpretation; however, the system of Lo provides for tagged data, and may be reasonably considered to be a form of radiological “passage” because the generated data describes some findings about a radiology image (at least page 8 paragraph 0102).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a medical finding as documented by a radiological image) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Instead, the claims merely recite a “passage”, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Based on the evidence presented above, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goettges (20160217269) discloses processing radiology reports to identify particular text items of interest (Abstract) in a manner similar to those disclosed in the instant pending Specification as originally filed.
Xu (20160267226) discloses processing a radiology report to identify misdiagnoses (Abstract) in a manner similar to those disclosed in the instant pending Specification as originally filed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM Eastern.
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, KAMBIZ ABDI can be reached on (571)272-6702. 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.
/T.N.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685