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 .
DETAIL ACTION
Priority
This application claims priority to U.S provisional Patent Application No. 62148669, filed on 4/16/2015 and is hereby incorporated by references.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 1/13/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to
www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 11 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12222983, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is merely in the terminology used in both sets of claims.
Below is a list of limitations that perform the same function. However different terminology is used in both sets to describe the limitations.
Instant application- 19017991: - Note* bold means different in instant application
Patented case: 12222983
1. A system configured to process transcript data, the system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory configured to store computer readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to:
a processor; and
a memory configured to store computer readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to:
obtain transcript data of a dialogue,
determine an individual from the transcript data,
identify a speaker from the parsed transcript data,
associate a portion of dialogue from the transcript data to the determined individual by linking the portion of dialogue to the individual; and
wherein the speaker is identified based on a first delimiter type in the parsed transcript data; associate a portion of spoken dialogue from the parsed transcript data to the determined speaker by linking the portion of spoken dialogue to the name of the speaker; and
generate data for displaying a user interface that displays a plurality of views including at least a first view and a second view,
generate data for displaying a user interface that displays a plurality of views that includes a first view and a second view,
wherein: the first view includes: a layout containing a plurality of elements associated with a profile, wherein the plurality of elements includes a portion of the dialogue associated with the individual, and selection of the portion of the dialogue causes display of the second view; and
wherein: the first view includes: a layout containing a plurality of elements associated with a profile, wherein the plurality of elements includes a portion of the spoken dialogue associated with the speaker, and selection of the portion of the spoken dialogue causes display of the second view; and
the second view includes: additional dialogue associated with each of a plurality of events associated with the individual; and
the second view includes: additional dialogue associated with each of a plurality of events in which the speaker has spoken; and
a selectable item displayed in proximity to the additional dialogue and corresponding to an event from the plurality of events
a selectable item displayed in proximity to the additional dialogue and corresponding to an event from the plurality of events,
wherein selection of the selectable item causes display of a third view from the plurality of views, and the third view includes a text version of a transcript of the event.
Furthermore, since dependent claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-20 are directed to further limitations based on the independent claims 1, 11, and 16 respectively, claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-20 as a whole do fall within the classes set forth in the nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. As summarized in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions.
Step 1
In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant invention encompasses three sets of claims: a system in claims 1-10 (i.e., a manufacture), a method in claims 11-15 (i.e., a process) and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium in claims 16-20 (i.e., a manufacture). All claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories and meet the requirements of step 1.
Step 2A
Prong One
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significant more. The instant invention is broadly directed to “determining an individual from the transcript data associate a portion of dialogue. Claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis added):
Claim 1: A system configured to process transcript data, the system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory configured to store computer readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to:
obtain transcript data of a dialogue,
determine an individual from the transcript data,
associate a portion of dialogue from the transcript data to the determined individual by linking the portion of dialogue to the individual; and
generate data for displaying a user interface that displays a plurality of views including at least a first view and a second view, wherein:
the first view includes:
a layout containing a plurality of elements associated with a profile, wherein
the plurality of elements includes a portion of the dialogue associated with the individual, and
selection of the portion of the dialogue causes display of the second view; and
the second view includes:
additional dialogue associated with each of a plurality of events associated with the individual; and
a selectable item displayed in proximity to the additional dialogue and corresponding to an event from the plurality of events.
The bold portions of claim 1 encompass the abstract idea, which is also encompassed by the dependent claims 2-10, and substantially also encompassed by claims 11-15 and 16-20
Claims 1, 11 and 16 recite the steps to determine an individual from the transcript data associate a portion of dialogue and display the generated data. These limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, are directed to certain performing of organizing human activity and mental processes, which is abstract idea.
Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implement on computers (i.e. storage medium or processors in claim 1) or a user interface for displaying data or merely using computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment for field of use is not considered integration into a practical application. Claim 1 recites using transcript data associated to a dialogue audio data to determine an individual in the dialogue. Using input audio data to recognize a speaker is a generic feature of audio signal process, which does not represent a technological improvement. The using of the computer and audio data process does not add improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology field, which failed to enable the abstract idea to integrate into a practical application. The claims are drafted in a result-oriented fashion, without the requisite specificity needed to provide a nonabstract technological solution. The computing system and audio signal process are directed to the components of a system amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to implement the abstract idea as presented.
Step 2B
Step 2B in the analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe that abstract method. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. We must examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" to "transform" the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter "requires 'more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words 'apply it."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].'" Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (alterations in original). Those "additional features" must be more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298.
The present claims include the additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a processor, storage medium, display with user interface (in claim 1). These additional elements are merely conventional computer and computer interface. Any potentially technical aspects of the claims are well-known generic computer components performing conventional functions (e.g., a processor performing a mental process). The present claims have been analyzed both individually and in combination and, the instant claims do not provide any improvement of the functioning of the computer or improvement to computer technology or any other technical field. There do not appear to be any meaningful limitations other than those that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. Thus, the present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claims 1-10 are not patent eligible.
Claims 11-15 and 16-20 recite similar limitations of claims 1-10, thus are abstract idea and not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10-11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20160189103) in view of Garcia (US 20130058471) and Neubacher (US 20150371637).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a system configured to process transcript data [e.g. FIG. 1-2; a device for converting spoken words from a meeting to text and determining one or more written words], the system comprising:
a processor [e.g. FIG. 1-2; processor 60]; and
a memory [e.g. storage medium 10] configured to store computer readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to:
obtain transcript data of a dialogue [e.g. FIG. 4; 401-402; [0042], conversion module converts speech to text and where one or more users present],
determine an individual from the transcript data [e.g. FIG. 1; 405-406; [0031], where based on the one or more text user 1 is identified and name identified],
associate a portion of dialogue from the transcript data to the determined individual by linking the portion of dialogue to the individual [e.g. FIG. 4; [0031 and 0042]; after conversion and identified user, the user is associated with the region of text; one or more text user 1 is identified and name identified]; and
generate a plurality of views including at least a first view and a second view [e.g. FIG. 3; an original minutes of meeting and an edited minutes of meeting], but Liu fails to disclose the detail of the plurality of views.
However, Garcia teaches the well-known concept of:
generate data for displaying a user interface that displays a plurality of views including at least a first view and a second view [e.g. FIG. 5-6; conference transcript list graphic user interface; views 500 and 600]
the first view [e.g. FIG. 5; 500] includes:
a layout containing a plurality of elements associated with a profile [e.g. FIG. 5-6; [0038 and 0070]; data storage module stores user profile information], wherein
the plurality of elements includes a portion of the dialogue associated with the individual [e.g. FIG. 5; [0038]; Each partial transcript has an associated date/time stamp, conference identifier, and speaker identifier], and
selection of the portion of the dialogue causes display of the second view [e.g. FIG. 5; selecting one of the icons “Obtain”, “sign contract” to cause another window to open up]; and
the second view [e.g. FIG. 6; 600] includes:
additional dialogue associated with each of a plurality of events associated with the individual [e.g. FIG. 5-6; selecting conference 2 to be shown in FIG. 6]; and
a selectable item displayed in proximity to the additional dialogue and corresponding to an event from the plurality of events [e.g. FIG. 5-6; [0061]; conference record includes a mapping to audio file and identifier 620 can link to contact information of the speaker].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transcript data processing system disclosed by Liu to exploit the well-known providing a plurality views technique taught by Garcia as above, in order to a proper size of transcript for the entire conference [See Garcia; [0003-0004]].
Liu and Garcia fail to explicitly disclose displaying a profile information.
However, Neubacher teaches the well-known concept of displaying a profile information [e.g. FIG. 5; displaying doctor’s name and patient’s name and history of illness].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transcript data processing system disclosed by Liu to exploit the well-known providing a plurality views technique taught by Garcia and the well-known concept of displaying profile information technique taught by Neubacher as above, in order to a proper size of transcript for the entire conference [See Garcia; [0003-0004]] and a transcription may be automatically associated with (and provided to) the correct electronic record [See Neubacher; [0016-000018]].
Regarding claim 10, Liu, Garcia, and Neubacher further disclose the second view includes a date associated with the event and an identifier of the event [e.g. Liu: FIG. 1-2; Garcia: FIG. 5-6; showing the date and time as well as identifier of Conference 2].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transcript data processing system disclosed by Liu to exploit the well-known providing a plurality views technique taught by Garcia and the well-known concept of displaying profile information technique taught by Neubacher as above, in order to a proper size of transcript for the entire conference [See Garcia; [0003-0004]] and a transcription may be automatically associated with (and provided to) the correct electronic record [See Neubacher; [0016-000018]].
Regarding claim 11, this is a method that includes same limitation as in claim 1 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 16, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes same limitation as in claim 1 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 2-6, 9, 12-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20160189103) in view of Garcia (US 20130058471), Neubacher (US 20150371637) and Feinberg (US 7,711,550).
Regarding claim 2, Liu, Garcia and Neubacher further disclose the transcript data, but fail to explicitly disclose the detail of the transcript data.
However, Feinberg teaches the well-known concept of the transcript data is included in a structured data file [e.g. FIG. 4], and parse the transcript data by processing elements in the structured data file to generate parsed transcript data [e.g. FIG. 4; The word breaker application may also use delimiters such as spaces between the combinations of characters to determine the beginning and ending of individual word]; and identify the individual from the parsed transcript data, wherein the individual is identified based on a first delimiter type in the parsed transcript data [e.g. col. 7, lines 42-50, where delimiters used to separate words such as names and comparing to contact list].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transcript data processing system disclosed by Liu to exploit the well-known providing a plurality views technique taught by Garcia, the well-known concept of displaying profile information technique taught by Neubacher and the name detection and parsing as taught by Feinberg as above, in order to a proper size of transcript for the entire conference [See Garcia; [0003-0004]], a transcription may be automatically associated with (and provided to) the correct electronic record [See Neubacher; [0016-000018]] and helpful actions to users with respect to names detected [See Feinberg; col. 2, lines 3-10].
Regarding claim 3, Liu, Garcia, Neubacher and Feinberg further disclose linking the portion of the dialogue to the name of the individual [e.g. Liu: FIG. 1; 405-406; [0031], where based on the one or more text user 1 is identified and name identified; Garcia: FIG. 2; Neubacher: FIG. 5] includes identifying text preceding the first delimiter type as the portion of dialogue and identifying text following the first delimiter type as the name of the individual associated with the portion of dialogue [e.g. Feinberg: col. 7, lines 42-50, where delimiters used to separate words such as names and comparing to contact list].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transcript data processing system disclosed by Liu to exploit the well-known providing a plurality views technique taught by Garcia, the well-known concept of displaying profile information technique taught by Neubacher and the name detection and parsing as taught by Feinberg as above, in order to a proper size of transcript for the entire conference [See Garcia; [0003-0004]], a transcription may be automatically associated with (and provided to) the correct electronic record [See Neubacher; [0016-000018]] and helpful actions to users with respect to names detected [See Feinberg; col. 2, lines 3-10].
Regarding claim 4, Liu, Garcia, Neubacher and Feinberg further disclose the plurality of views further includes a third view having a text version of a transcript of the event, and the text version of the transcript of the event includes the portion of the dialogue of the individual [e.g. Garcia: FIG. 5-6; clicking different button in FIG. 5 will get different view in FIG. 6; Feinberg: FIG. 4-6].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transcript data processing system disclosed by Liu to exploit the well-known providing a plurality views technique taught by Garcia, the well-known concept of displaying profile information technique taught by Neubacher and the name detection and parsing as taught by Feinberg as above, in order to a proper size of transcript for the entire conference [See Garcia; [0003-0004]], a transcription may be automatically associated with (and provided to) the correct electronic record [See Neubacher; [0016-000018]] and helpful actions to users with respect to names detected [See Feinberg; col. 2, lines 3-10].
Regarding claim 5, Liu, Garcia, Neubacher and Feinberg further disclose in the text version of the transcript of the event further includes dialogue of additional individuals [e.g. Liu: FIG. 1 and 5-7; Garcia: FIG. 5-6].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transcript data processing system disclosed by Liu to exploit the well-known providing a plurality views technique taught by Garcia, the well-known concept of displaying profile information technique taught by Neubacher and the name detection and parsing as taught by Feinberg as above, in order to a proper size of transcript for the entire conference [See Garcia; [0003-0004]], a transcription may be automatically associated with (and provided to) the correct electronic record [See Neubacher; [0016-000018]] and helpful actions to users with respect to names detected [See Feinberg; col. 2, lines 3-10].
Regarding claim 6, Liu, Garcia, Neubacher and Feinberg further disclose the selectable item includes a button proximate to the additional dialogue associated with the event, and selection of the button causes display of the third view [e.g. Liu: FIG. 1 and 5-7; Garcia: FIG. 5-6; clicking different button in FIG. 5 will get different view in FIG. 6].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transcript data processing system disclosed by Liu to exploit the well-known providing a plurality views technique taught by Garcia, the well-known concept of displaying profile information technique taught by Neubacher and the name detection and parsing as taught by Feinberg as above, in order to a proper size of transcript for the entire conference [See Garcia; [0003-0004]], a transcription may be automatically associated with (and provided to) the correct electronic record [See Neubacher; [0016-000018]] and helpful actions to users with respect to names detected [See Feinberg; col. 2, lines 3-10].
Regarding claim 9, Liu, Garcia, Neubacher and Feinberg further disclose the user interface is configured to be switched between the first, second, and third views [e.g. Liu: FIG. 2-3, Garcia: FIG. 5-6].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transcript data processing system disclosed by Liu to exploit the well-known providing a plurality views technique taught by Garcia, the well-known concept of displaying profile information technique taught by Neubacher and the name detection and parsing as taught by Feinberg as above, in order to a proper size of transcript for the entire conference [See Garcia; [0003-0004]], a transcription may be automatically associated with (and provided to) the correct electronic record [See Neubacher; [0016-000018]] and helpful actions to users with respect to names detected [See Feinberg; col. 2, lines 3-10].
Regarding claim 12-15, this is a method that includes same limitation as in claim 2-5 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 17-20, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes same limitation as in claim 2-5 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20160189103) in view of Garcia (US 20130058471), Neubacher (US 20150371637) and Mikan (US 20130089189 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Liu, Garcia and Neubacher further disclose the plurality of elements associated with a profile including contact information [e.g. Liu: Garcia:], but Liu, Garcia and Neubacher fail to disclose the plurality of elements including market information.
However, Mikan teaches the well-known concept of the plurality of elements including market information [e.g. FIG. 2; [0049]; where based on detection of a specific word in the communication, the information about the word is added into the transcript such as stock price of a company or news stories].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transcript data processing system disclosed by Liu to exploit the well-known providing a plurality views technique taught by Garcia, the well-known concept of displaying profile information technique taught by Neubacher and the name detection and market information as taught Mikan as above, in order to a proper size of transcript for the entire conference [See Garcia; [0003-0004]], a transcription may be automatically associated with (and provided to) the correct electronic record [See Neubacher; [0016-000018]] and a transcript of a telephonic communication and supplement the transcript with additional information automatically [See Mikan; abstract and [0004]].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20160189103) in view of Garcia (US 20130058471), Neubacher (US 20150371637), Mikan (US 20130089189 A1) and of Hager (US 200902766215 A1)
Regarding claim 8, Liu, Garcia, Neubacher and Mikan further disclose the plurality of elements are divided in the first view so that the portion of the dialogue is positioned proximate the market information [e.g. Liu: FIG. 3; Garcia: FIG. 5-6; Mikan: FIG. 2; [0049]; where based on detection of a specific word in the communication, the information about the word is added into the transcript such as stock price of a company or news stories], but Liu, Garcia, Neubacher and Mikan fail to disclose the detail of the first view.
However, Hager teaches the well-known concept of the portion of the dialogue is positioned proximate to the contact information [e.g. FIG. 8 and 13; contact information (name and phone number) in header portion shown and transcript below].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transcript data processing system disclosed by Liu to exploit the well-known providing a plurality views technique taught by Garcia, the well-known concept of displaying profile information technique taught by Neubacher, the name detection and market information as taught Mikan and the well-known concept of viewing contact information technique taught by Hager as above, in order to a proper size of transcript for the entire conference [See Garcia; [0003-0004]], a transcription may be automatically associated with (and provided to) the correct electronic record [See Neubacher; [0016-000018]], a transcript of a telephonic communication, supplement the transcript with additional information automatically [See Mikan; abstract and [0004]] and receiving corrected text data over the at least one computer network from the plurality of users [See Hager; abstract and [0004-0005]].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Biadsy et al (US 20160267904 A1).
Gruenstein et al (US 20130346078 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHUBING REN whose telephone number is (571)272-2788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at 571-272-7602. 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.
/ZHUBING REN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights