Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-19, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a computing system comprising a processor and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts including providing user input to a generative model, obtaining outputs from the generative model and search engine, extracting content from electronic pages, constructing prompts with multiple inputs, and presenting results with citations. Therefore, the claim is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2a prong 1 This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Limitation “providing an input set forth by a user of a client computing device to a generative model”, classification: Mental Process. The underlying operational logic is a judicial exception because formulating a question or request for information is a basic cognitive step that originates in the human mind. This step is analogous to a person thinking of a question.
Limitation “obtaining, from the generative model, a first output, wherein the first output is generated by the generative model based upon the input”, classification: Mental Process. The underlying operational logic is a judicial exception because asking a question and receiving an initial rough answer is a basic information-gathering step that a human can do mentally.
Limitation “providing the first output to a search engine”, classification: Mental Process. The underlying operational logic is a judicial exception because passing an idea to guide a search is an ordinary information-seeking task. This step is like using an initial thought or keyword to decide what topic to look up.
Limitation “obtaining, from the search engine, content identified by the search engine, where the search engine identifies the content based upon the first output”, classification: Mental Process. The underlying operational logic is a judicial exception because searching based on a specific query is an information-gathering activity that can be performed with a pen and paper.
Limitation “obtaining, from the client computing device, content extracted from an electronic page being presented by way of a computer-implemented application on the client computing device”, classification: Mental Process. The underlying operational logic is a judicial exception because reading an open document and taking notes from it is a basic human observation and collection activity.
Limitation “providing, to the generative model, a prompt comprising the input, the content identified by the search engine, and the content extracted from the electronic page”, classification: Mental Process. The underlying operational logic is a judicial exception because combining multiple separate sources of information into an organized pile or structured set of reference notes is a basic mental activity. Humans routinely consolidate different data streams when preparing to make a decision.
Limitation “obtaining, from the generative model, a second output, wherein the second output is generated by the generative model based upon the content identified by the search engine, the content extracted from the electronic page, and the input”, classification: Mental Process. The underlying operational logic is a judicial exception because it is like a person reads through their compiled research notes and writing a summary based on those notes.
Limitation “causing the second output and a citation to a source of at least one of the content identified by the search engine or the content extracted from the electronic page to be presented at the client computing device”, classification: Mental Process. The underlying operational logic is a judicial exception because delivering a summary report along with source links is a conventional activity. This step is analogous to a researcher writing a summary paper with a bibliography or reference footnote for verification purposes.
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. "For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record." MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. The limitations mentioned are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2a prong 2 This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The additional elements recited in Claim 1 beyond the judicial exception comprise: a processor, memory storing instructions, a generative model, a search engine, and a computer-implemented application.
MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to Functioning of Computer or Technical Field
While specification paragraphs [0038], [0046], and [0065] describe general operational improvements such as integration of search results with generative model outputs, an eligibility evaluation of a processor, memory storing instructions, generative model, search engine, and computer-implemented application confirms that the claim lacks the specific structural technical parameters required to limit the invention to those improvements. The claim language defines broad operational goals at a high level of functional generality rather than an explicit technical mechanism that improves underlying computer processing speeds, memory limits, or network architecture hardware throughput. As detailed in specification paragraphs [0064], [0065], and [0087], these operations rely on conventional data structures and routine computer functions, leading to the conclusion that these elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application via an improvement to a computer or technical field.
MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine
An eligibility evaluation of a processor, memory storing instructions, generative model, search engine, and computer-implemented application confirms that the recited elements do not constitute a specialized or non-generic structural machine configuration. While the claim may recite nominal physical nouns or hardware circuits, the specification defines these components broadly enough to encompass general-purpose processors, memory boundaries, or standard state machines. Instead, these components act as mere generic vehicles for executing software instructions because the execution path relies on ordinary computer elements performing standard data routing. As detailed in specification paragraphs [0032], [0033], and [0090], the operating environment utilizes ordinary processing units and basic storage structures, leading to the conclusion that these elements do not constitute a particular machine because they describe general-purpose computer components acting as mere vehicles for implementing software instructions without any specialized structural modification or unique technological configuration.
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation
An eligibility evaluation of a processor, memory storing instructions, generative model, search engine, and computer-implemented application confirms these elements do not describe a permanent change of state for tangible items because they involve purely electronic manipulation of digital records rather than structural modifications to physical matter. Instead, they describe abstract concepts, digital routing, or basic computer logging since they merely represent conventional electronic data positioning and standard storage interactions. As detailed in specification paragraphs [0035], [0064], and [0087], the system manipulates digital bits rather than tangible items, leading to the conclusion that these elements do not constitute a particular transformation because they describe conventional electronic data manipulation and standard storage activities rather than a physical change of state or transformation of tangible matter.
MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations
An eligibility evaluation of a processor, memory storing instructions, generative model, search engine, and computer-implemented application confirms these elements describe a processing framework at a high level of functional generality because they define broad operational goals-such as basic data ingestion, storage, or interface delivery-without imposing specific technical constraints. Furthermore, they fail to limit the absolute scope of the claim beyond generic or routine operational practices since they cover standard data handling features common across generic processing platforms. As detailed in specification paragraphs [0029], [0036], and [0085], the boundaries are left functionally wide open, leading to the conclusion that these elements do not introduce meaningful limitations because they define the processing environment at a broad level of functional generality, failing to introduce specific technical constraints that narrow the preemptive scope of the exception.
MPEP § 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply Exception
An eligibility evaluation of a processor, memory storing instructions, generative model, search engine, and computer-implemented application confirms these elements recite a desired operational outcome at a high level of functional generality because they state what broad results are accomplished without specifying concrete technical mechanisms or specialized physical parameters to achieve them. They represent basic automation constraints because they apply to any computing environment performing routine input/output or database steps. As detailed in specification paragraphs [0067], [0087], and [0096], the descriptions focus entirely on high-level goals rather than specific architectural boundaries, leading to the conclusion that these elements represent a mere instruction to apply the exception under MPEP § 2106.05(f) because they recite broad operational results at a high level of functional generality without incorporating specific, unconventional technical mechanisms to execute those results.
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
An eligibility evaluation of a processor, memory storing instructions, generative model, search engine, and computer-implemented application confirms these elements represent routine preprocessing or post-processing because they describe basic data acquisition or display operations that occur prior to or following the primary algorithmic exception logic. They are merely incidental to the primary process since they serve as conventional input/output mechanisms that facilitate standard interaction without adding an inventive or technical step to the actual core solution. As detailed in specification paragraphs [0039], [0062], and [0087], these activities are standard administrative or formatting tasks, leading to the conclusion that these elements constitute insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP § 2106.05(g) because they represent standard data indexing preprocessing or conventional interface post-processing that is merely incidental to the primary implementation of the abstract ideas.
MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment
An eligibility evaluation of a processor, memory storing instructions, generative model, search engine, and computer-implemented application confirms these elements do not integrate into a field of use that imposes meaningful limits because the referenced technical environment is broad and conventional, failing to impose hard physical or structural limits beyond standard commercial system constraints. Instead, they represent a conventional field-of-use limitation without technological improvement because restricting the abstract concept to this specific application area merely limits where the calculations are deployed without modifying the underlying machine infrastructure. As detailed in specification paragraphs [0002], [0091], and [0092], the environment is described as generic backdrop, leading to the conclusion that these elements are not integrated into a meaningful field of use because they merely restrict the application of the abstract exceptions to a conventional technological field without providing any non-generic structural or functional improvements to that environment.
Step 2b, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The ordered combination of additional elements processor, memory storing instructions, generative model, search engine, and computer-implemented application fails to add an inventive concept because they utilize routine, well-understood, and conventional processing activities executed on generic hardware. As detailed in specification paragraphs [0036], [0041], and [0087], these elements describe a general software/system process running on conventional hardware rather than a specific, non-generic technological solution to a technical problem inherent to the machine itself. As detailed in specification paragraphs [0032], [0033], and [0090], a factual inquiry into the hardware boundaries confirms that these additional elements describe a general software/system process running on conventional hardware rather than a specific, non-generic technological solution to a technical problem inherent to the machine itself. Because the ordered combination of additional elements only utilizes standard computer components and conventional steps to execute the abstract information retrieval and synthesis concepts, the independent claim is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2 recites "wherein the first output comprises a textual response to the input set forth by the user of the client computing device." The claim merely describes a field of use rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem. The format of the first output as text is a field-of-use limitation. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites "wherein the first output comprises an image generated by the generative model based upon the first input." The claim merely describes a field of use rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem. The limitation only wants to output to an image. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites "wherein the content identified by the search engine comprises at least an instant answer identified by the search engine based upon the first output." The claim merely describes a field of use rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites "wherein the content identified by the search engine comprises at least a portion of a webpage identified by the search engine as being relevant the input set forth by the user of the client computing device." The limitation only narrows the kind of search result returned to part of a webpage. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites "wherein the computer-implemented application is a web browser." The claim merely describes a field of use rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem. Here, the limitation only narrows the type of application [Wingdings font/0xF3] a web browser. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites "wherein the computer-implemented application is an email application." The claim merely describes a field of use rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem. Here, the limitation only narrows the type of application [Wingdings font/0xF3] email. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites "wherein the generative model is a transformer-based model." The limitation only narrows the type of generative model to a transformer-based model. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 21 recites “wherein obtaining the content extracted from the electronic page is performed responsive to receiving, while the electronic page is being presented on the client computing device, an indication that a conversation with the generative model is to be initiated” This feature describes an outcome at high level of functional generality, as specification paragraphs [0064] and [0067] describe web browser transmitting content from webpage to generative model upon receiving indication that conversation is to be initiated. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the citation comprises a citation to a webpage from which the content identified by the search engine was obtained” This feature describes an outcome at high level of functional generality, as specification paragraph [0046] describes generative model including citations to sources used when provided with content from webpage by search engine. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 23 recites “assigning relevance scores to candidate content; and retaining, in the prompt, content based upon the relevance scores subject to a size limit of the generative model” This feature describes an outcome at high level of functional generality, as specification paragraph [0053] describes information being assigned relevance scores with highest retained while lowest removed, and paragraph [0064] mentions content corresponds to threshold number of tokens that can be included in prompt such as 7000 tokens. Because broad text fails to incorporate specific technological structures from specification, limitation fails to provide patent-eligible restriction or inventive concept, leaving claim ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Section 35 U.S.C. 101
Pg. 7-9, Applicant argues that “… As set forth below, the eligibility of amended claims 1, 10, and 19 does not turn on Step 2A, Prong One, because, regardless of whether the claims are characterized as reciting a mental process, they integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Prong Two and recite significantly more under Step 2B. That said, Applicant respectfully submits that the steps of amended claims 1, 10, and 19 are not ones a person would perform mentally: the claims recite "obtaining, from the client computing device, content extracted from an electronic page being presented by way of a computer-implemented application on the client computing device" and "providing, to the generative model, a prompt comprising the input, the content identified by the search engine, and the content extracted from the electronic page," and claim 23 further recites assigning relevance scores to candidate content and retaining content in the prompt subject to a size limit of the generative model, a constraint that arises from the generative model itself and has no counterpart in human cognition. Applicant's principal position, however, is that amended claims 1, 10, and 19 are patent eligible under Prong Two and Step 2B, as explained below.
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the claims recite an abstract idea, amended claims 1, 10, and 19 integrate any such idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. The Office has alleged that any productivity benefit of collaborating a generative model with a search engine is merely "a benefit of the abstract idea performed faster than a human, not a computer improvement." (See Office Action, page 9.) Applicant respectfully disagrees. A known technical problem with generative models is that they can produce factually incorrect or unverifiable output. Amended claims 1, 10, and 19 recite a specific technical implementation that addresses this technical problem: constructing a prompt comprising the input, the content identified by the search engine, and the content extracted from the electronic page being presented on the client computing device; generating the second output based upon that content; and presenting a citation to a source of at least one of that content, thereby enabling verification. The problem addressed by amended claims 1, 10, and 19, which includes a generative model producing factually incorrect or unverifiable output, is one that arises specifically in the context of generative- model computing and has no pre-computer analog. The additional elements recited in amended claims 1, 10, and 19 are therefore not a mere field of use or a recitation of generic components applied to an abstract idea; they define a specific arrangement that solves that technical problem. Claim 23 further recites assigning relevance scores to candidate content and retaining content in the prompt subject to a size limit of the generative model, a specific mechanism directed to the technical constraints of the generative model itself. For example, the Specification describes an embodiment in which providing the generative model with content extracted from an electronic page being presented on the client computing device, in addition to content identified by the search engine, increases the likelihood that the generated output is factually accurate and allows the user to verify the output against its sources. (See As-Filed Specification, paragraphs [0012], [0064], [0068].) This is not merely performing an abstract idea faster on a computer; it is a concrete improvement to the functioning of the recited system. The additional elements therefore impose meaningful limits on the claims and integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application…”
Argument “Claims 1, 10, and 19 do not turn on Step 2A, Prong One because they integrate the idea into a practical application under Prong Two and recite significantly more under Step 2B” The Examiner must evaluate Step 2A, Prong One because determining if a claim recites a judicial exception is a mandatory first step. The claim language explicitly recites data-gathering and data-routing steps. Receiving text entries, looking up information, and obtaining information represent standard cognitive operations that fall squarely within the category of Mental Processes.
Argument “The steps of amended claims 1, 10, and 19 are not ones a person would perform mentally because they recite extracting content from an electronic page and providing a combined prompt.” The automated retrieval and compilation of text data are standard information collection tasks. Reading text from an open document and including it in the prompt alongside search results consists entirely of information gathering and arranging text entries. Because these steps represent the collection and arrangement of text data to prepare for generating a response, they describe a step-by-step process of managing data that can be performed entirely with human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Performing these standard data collections steps via software on conventional computing hardware does not change the core mental process.
Argument “Claim 23 recites a size limit constraint that arises from the generative model itself and has no counterpart in human cognition.” Filtering data to fit within a capacity threshold is a basic data-reduction that a person can do mentally. The claim text describes this feature as a broad functional limit and fails to recite any non-generic structural hardware parameters.
Argument “Amended claims 1, 10, and 19 address a technical problem unique to generative models with no pre-computer analog by using a specific technical implementation.” The problem of data accuracy and verifiability relates entirely content quality. Not an underlying software or hardware machine malfunction. Even if generative model errors are new problem in the computers, the claimed solution is old: cross-referencing multiple sources and writing a citation for verification.
Argument “The additional elements are not a mere field of use or a recitation of generic components, but define a specific arrangement that solves the technical problem” Restricting the concept of cross-referencing text entries to the generative models or web browsers represents a standard field of use limitation that fails to integrate the exception. The generic processor and memory elements merely execute standard software instructions to move the text between the client device, the search engine, and the generative models. The generic computer components perform gathering and displaying text over network without any change to the computer hardware.
Argument “As-filed specification paragraphs [0012], [0064], and [0068] describe embodiments that provide a concrete improvement to the system by increasing factual accuracy and allowing source verification.” The Applicant points [0012], [0064, and [0080] to argue that the claim solves a technical problem. However, the claim text fails to include any unique hardware setups or special programming instruction from these paragraphs. While those paragraphs may describe the general goals of making data more accurate and letting user verify sources, the claim language only recites a broad result and relies on generic computer to perform these steps.
Argument “The additional elements impose meaningful limits and create a concrete system improvement rather than merely performing an abstract idea faster on a computer.” Simply listing standard generic computer parts like a processor, a search engine, and a generative model does not make the claim eligible because the text only describes using these conventional computer components to move the text around without any structural change to the hardware.
Pg. 9-10, Applicant argues that “… Furthermore, under Step 2B, the ordered combination recited in amended claims 1, 10, and 19 amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. The Office has alleged that the ordered combination "adds nothing that is not already present when the elements are taken individually." (See Office Action, page 10.) The ordered combination recited in claims 1, 10, and 19, includes: obtaining, from the generative model, a first output generated based upon the input, providing the first output to the search engine, obtaining content identified by the search engine based upon the first output, obtaining content extracted from an electronic page being presented by a computer-implemented application on the client device, constructing a prompt comprising the input, the content identified by the search engine, and the content extracted from the electronic page, generating the second output based upon that content, and causing a citation to a source of that content to be presented, as recited in the respective claims. Applicant respectfully submits that the ordered combination, as recited in amended claims 1, 10, and 19, is a specific, non- conventional arrangement that amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea, and is not merely generic data gathering and outputting. Grounding a single output on both separately retrieved search-engine content and content extracted from an electronic page being presented on the client computing device, presenting a citation to a source of that content, and selecting content for the prompt subject to a size limit of the generative model, as recited in amended claims 1, 10, and 19 and claim 23, is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity, and the Office has provided no evidence that it is. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection…”
Argument “The ordered combination of steps in claims 1, 10, and 19 is a specific, non-conventional arrangement that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not merely generic data gathering and outputting.” Under Step 2B, the ordered combination of steps fails to add an inventive concept because they utilize routine and conventional processing activities executed on generic hardware. As detailed in specification paragraphs, [0036], [0041], and [0087], the claims describe a general software process running on standard computer components performing their expected roles. Arranging these data-gathering and data-routing steps in a standard step-by-step does not create a technical solution to a machine processing defect.
Argument “Grounding a single output on both separately retrieved search-engine content and content extracted from an electronic page being presented on the client device is not a well-understood, routine, or conventional activity” Standard applications routinely fetch text data from multiple separate sources and append them together into a single text layout. This process uses regular program instructions to merge the text string on standard hardware, without modifying the underlying operation of the computer platform itself.
Argument “Presenting a citation to a source of that content and selecting content for the prompt subject to a size limit of the generative model is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity.” Adding a source link and filtering text entries to fit a size limit are basic data-handling steps. The claim text (claim 23) only describes selecting and keeping content based on relevance scores. Because the text does not change how the computer memory allocates space, it describes a routine software instruction that relies on an ordinary computer to perform the work.
Argument “The Office has provided no evidence that these combined activities are well-understood, routine, or conventional under Step 2B.” The examiner is not required to provide documentary evidence for processors, memory, web browsers, search engines, and generative models that are notoriously commercial. The basic parts are widely used in everyday life. Moving text between the common component over a regular network relies entirely on ordinary actions like sending, receiving, and displaying text.
The claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One and remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub 2025/0124024 – Kirk discloses a large language model (LLM) may receive a query via a user interface of a client device. The LLM may generate one or more data queries from the query to query one or more data sets. The LLM may then transmit the one or more data queries to the one or more data sets. The LLM may then receive information associated with the query and a source for the information from the one or more data sets. The source may be indicative of a location within the one or more data sets from where the information was obtained. Following, the LLM may generate a response to the query that includes the information associated with the query and the source for the information and transmit the response to the user interface of the client device for display.
U.S. Pub 20250124066 – McElvain discloses methods for large language model (LLM)-assisted research tools that support retrieval-augmented content generation. In an aspect, the disclosed systems and methods may provide functionality for receiving, by one or more processors, a set of search criteria via a graphical user interface. The systems and methods may also include functionality for providing, by the one or more processors, the set of search criteria or information derived from the set of search criteria as one or more prompts to one or more LLMs, and for generating, by the one or more LLMs, textual content based on the one or more prompts. The textual content may include information associated with one or more legal issues associated with the set of search criteria.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
