Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a reply to the application filed on 2/6/2025, in which, claim(s) 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/31/2025, has been reviewed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 2/6/2025 is/are accepted by The Examiner.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed is being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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(s) 1-20 is/are directed to a method and system. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims are held to claim an unpatentable abstract idea, and are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Inventions for a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” generally constitute patent-eligible subject matter. 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’1l, 573 U.S. 208,216 (2014).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent- eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217. The first step in that analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-— ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, the inquiry ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements of the claims are considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). This is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ - i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. at 217-18 (alteration in original).
The USPTO published revised guidance on January 7, 2019, for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (the “2019 Revised Guidance”). That guidance revised the USPTO's examination procedure with respect to the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework by (1) “[p]roviding groupings of subject matter that [are] considered an abstract idea”; and (2) clarifying that a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Id. at 50.1
The first step, as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance (i.e., Step 2A), is, thus, a two-prong test. In Step 2A, Prong One, we look to whether the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., one of the following three groupings of abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts; (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions; and (3) mental processes. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54; MPEP §§ 2106.04(II) (A) (1), 2106.04(a). If so, we next determine, in Step 2A, Prong Two, whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception, i.e., whether the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55; MPEP §§ 2106.04 (IT) (A) (2), 2106.04(d). Only if the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application do we conclude that the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55; MPEP § 2106.04 (IT) (A) (2).
If the claim is determined to be directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, we next evaluate the additional elements, individually and in combination, in Step 2B, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept, i.e., whether the additional elements or combination of elements amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself; only then, is the claim patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05.
Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A)
2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A, Prong 1
The abstract idea to which claims 1-20 are directed to is mental process such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and mathematical relationships/calculations. In particular, the claims recite the following abstract concepts:
“receiving a plurality of multisets of messages, wherein a plurality of private values are respectively associated with the plurality of multisets of messages, each multiset of messages comprising two or more messages that respectively contain two or more message values that together encode the private value associated with such multiset of messages for differentially private aggregation, and wherein at least one of the two or more message values comprises a random value;” (i.e., abstract idea of receiving data/information as found abstract by the Courts in Internet Patents, Content Extraction, Digitech, CyberSource, Electric Power Group, Classen, FairWarning)
“aggregating the message values for the plurality of multisets of messages to obtain an aggregate sum associated with the plurality of private values.” (i.e., abstract idea of mathematic concept of organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations abstract by the Courts in Digitech, Grams)
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified abstract ideas in patent claims by making comparisons to concepts found in past decisions to be judicial exceptions to eligibility. The 2019 IEG summarizes concepts the courts have considered to be abstract ideas by associating eligibility decisions with judicial descriptors (e.g., “an idea of itself,” “certain methods of organizing human activities”, “mathematical relationships and formulas”) based on common characteristics. These associations define the judicial descriptors in a manner that stays within the confines of the judicial precedent, with the understanding that these associations are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some concepts may be associated with more than one judicial descriptor.
The abstract functions of the claims in the case are claim(s) is/are directed to system and method of receiving data/information (i.e., abstract idea mental process) and aggregating sum as defined by the claimed steps above.
Looking at the steps of the claims, for each of the claims, receiving data and aggregating values which was ruled abstract in:
a. Collecting and comparing known information (Classen);
b. Comparing information regarding a sample or test subject to a control or target data (Ambry/Myriad CAFC);
c. Collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is detected (FairWarning);
d. Data recognition and storage (Content Extraction);
e. Obtaining and comparing intangible data (Cybersource);
f. Collecting, selecting, categorizing, analyzing, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group);
g. Organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (Digitech);
h. Virus Screening (int. Ventures v. Symantec ‘610 patent);
i. A mathematical formula for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition (Grams).
Furthermore, the invention is nothing more than receiving of data as described in the claims that can be performed mentally (or with a pen and piece of paper). The steps are similar to concepts and ideas that have been identified as abstract by the courts. For example, receiving data/information as found abstract by the Courts in Internet Patents, Content Extraction, Digitech, CyberSource, Electric Power Group, Classen, FairWarning, and aggregating are mathematic concept of organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations abstract by the Courts in Digitech, Grams)
2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A, Prong 2
The 2019 Revised Guidance sets forth a non-exhaustive listing of considerations indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may have integrated a recited judicial exception into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; MPEP § 2106.04(d). In particular, the Guidance describes that an additional element may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application if, inter alia, the additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or a technical field. Id. At the same time, the Guidance makes clear that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Id.
The abstract functions of the claims in the case are claim(s) is/are directed to system and method of receiving of data messages (i.e., abstract idea mental process) and aggregating sum as defined by the claimed steps. The claims do not require an arguably inventive set of components, methods, or algorithms. The abstract idea is implemented using generic computing elements (“computers, programs, medium”) and an off the shelf that do not integrate a practical application of the abstract idea in the claims (step 2A, prong 2). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional generic computing elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims recite a mental process, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea are no more than generic computer components used as tools to perform the recited abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 ("(Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional feature[s] that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)); 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (identifying “an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception” and “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” as examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application).
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2B)
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The considerations are whether the claim includes:
Improvements to another technology or technical field;
Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself;
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine;
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing;
Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application;
Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment;
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer;
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception;
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The relevant question under Step 2B is whether claim includes an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. Here, the additional elements of claim beyond the abstract idea, namely, a “computer hardware”, “programs”, “machine learning model” is a conventional computing equipment and algorithm used in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner. These additional elements do not provide an inventive concept; rather, they simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception.
Applying the test to the claims in the application, the structural elements of the claims, which include a computer when taken in combination with the functional elements claim(s) is/are directed to system and method to receiving data messages and aggregation, together do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea (receiving data messages) to a particular technological environment (a general purpose computer and/or environment of the user). When considered as an ordered combination, the Examiner does not find any combination of the additional elements that amounts to more than the sum of the parts. The Examiner finds that the individual elements of the claims are performing their intended roles and functions. In most cases, the additional elements are applied merely to carry out data processing, as discussed above, fall under well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers in our common day-to-day interactions. Therefore, the claimed interactions of the various generically recited methods/devices lacks an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application in the sense that the result is equivalent to purely mental activity and mathematical concept, e.g., aggregating sum.
Dependent claims do not add an inventive step to the abstract idea of the independent claims and are therefore rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection. Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19, pertain to determining intermediate values and scaling parameter value without adding any inventive concept or using an unconventional computing element or improving the underlying computer technology.
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 1-20 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.
The claims reciting “receiving, over one or more communication channels, a plurality of multisets of messages, wherein a plurality of private values are respectively associated with the plurality of multisets of messages, each multiset of messages comprising two or more messages that respectively contain two or more message values that together encode the private value associated with such multiset of messages for differentially private aggregation, and wherein at least one of the two or more message values comprises a random value…”. It is unclear if the plurality of multisets of messages are send in a single communication or multiple times. Also, it is unclear if the each multisets of message have their own private value and aggregation, or the private aggregation is for the entire plurality of multisets of messages.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El-Moussa et al. (US 20200220714 A1; hereinafter Moussa) in view of Shi et al. (NPL: PriSense: Privacy-Preserving Data Aggregation in People-Centric Urban Sensing Systems - IDS; hereinafter Shi).
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 20, Moussa discloses a 1. A computing system comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations (a computer system including a processor and memory storing computer program code for performing the method set out above [Moussa; ¶15]), the operations comprising:
receiving, over one or more communication channels, a plurality of multisets of messages, wherein a plurality of private values are respectively associated with the plurality of multisets of messages, each multiset of messages comprising two or more messages that respectively contain two or more message values that together encode the private value associated with such multiset of messages for differentially private aggregation, and wherein at least one of the two or more message values comprises a random value (the receiver can receives multiple messages over the communication line, each message are broken into multiple blocks and transmitting from the sender to receiver in single or multiple transmission, including the shuffle sequence order so when receiver knows the order to reassemble the message blocks [Moussa; ¶33-41; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]); and
aggregating the message values for the plurality of multisets of messages to obtain an [[aggregate sum]] associated with the plurality of private values (the order being a proper order such that an aggregation of the blocks in the proper order constitutes the message, coming from the math property and shuffler reorder [Moussa; ¶39-44; Figs. 4-6 and associated texts]). Moussa does not explicilty discloses the aggregate is the aggregate sum; however, in a related and analogous art, Shi teaches this feature.
In particular, Shi teaches the concept of data slicing and mixing and can support a wide range of statistical additive and non-additive aggregation functions such as Sum, Average, Variance, Count, Max/Min, Median, Histogram, and Percentile with accurate aggregation results. PriSense can support strong user privacy against a tunable threshold number of colluding users and aggregation servers. The efficacy and efficiency of PriSense are confirmed by thorough analytical and simulation results [Shi; III Privacy…]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moussa in view of Shi aggregation sum with the motivation to enabling accurate statistical aggregates of sensing data while providing strong user privacy in urban sensing systems [Shi; Intro…].
Regarding claim 2, Moussa-Shi combination discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of multisets of messages have been respectively generated by a plurality of different devices, and wherein the messages have been shuffled and are randomly distributed amongst each other without regard to which of the plurality of different devices generated each message (the message blocks are shuffle using math algorithm and distributed [Moussa; ¶39-44; Figs. 4-6 and associated texts]. The first component aims at additive aggregation functions. Its basic idea is for each node to slice its data into a certain number (say, n+1) of slices before answering the query from an aggregation server. Then it randomly chooses n other nodes, called its cover nodes, to which a unique data slice is sent. Finally, each node sends to the aggregation server the sum of its own slice left and the slices received from others along with little side information, based on which the aggregation server can compute an accurate additive aggregation result [Shi; Intro…]). The motivation to enabling accurate statistical aggregates of sensing data while providing strong user privacy in urban sensing systems [Shi; Intro…].
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Moussa-Shi combination discloses wherein aggregating the message values for the plurality of multisets of messages comprises: determining a sum of the message values modulo a sampling control parameter value (aggregation functions such as Sum and Average with accurate aggregation results [Shi; III Privacy…]). The motivation to enabling accurate statistical aggregates of sensing data while providing strong user privacy in urban sensing systems [Shi; Intro…].
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Moussa-Shi combination discloses wherein aggregating the message values for the plurality of multisets of messages comprises further comprises: downscaling the sum of the message values modulo the sampling control parameter value by a scaling control parameter value (scaling the parameters by hash value to reduce data [Moussa; ¶29; Figs. 2-4 and associated texts]).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Moussa-Shi combination discloses wherein aggregating the message values for the plurality of multisets of messages comprises:
determining an intermediate value that equals a sum of the message values modulo a sampling control parameter value; and performing the following return logic: if the intermediate value is greater than two times a number of the private values times a scaling control parameter value: returning zero; else if the intermediate value is greater than the number of the private values times the scaling control parameter value: returning the number of the private values; and
else: returning the intermediate value divided by the scaling control parameter value (aggregation functions such as Sum, Average, Variance, Count, Max/Min, Median, Histogram, and Percentile with accurate aggregation results [Shi; III Privacy…]. The motivation to enabling accurate statistical aggregates of sensing data while providing strong user privacy in urban sensing systems [Shi; Intro…].
Regarding claim 6, Moussa-Shi combination discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein aggregating the message values for the plurality of multisets of messages comprises determining, based on the aggregate sum that approximates the sum of the plurality of private values, an average value that approximates an average of the private values (aggregation functions such as Sum, Average, Variance, Count, Max/Min, Median, Histogram, and Percentile with accurate aggregation results [Shi; III Privacy…]. The motivation to enabling accurate statistical aggregates of sensing data while providing strong user privacy in urban sensing systems [Shi; Intro…].
Regarding claim 7, Moussa-Shi combination discloses the computing system of claim 4, wherein one or more of the sampling control parameter value and the scaling control parameter value comprises a user-specified hyperparameter or a learned hyperparameter (each node with data to submit distributes its data slices within its h-hop neighborhood, where h is a system parameter [Shi; II System…]. The motivation to enabling accurate statistical aggregates of sensing data while providing strong user privacy in urban sensing systems [Shi; Intro…].
Regarding claim 8, Moussa-Shi combination discloses the computing system of claim 4, wherein one or more of the sampling control parameter value and the scaling control parameter value is greater than or equal to four (the default evaluation parameters unless specified otherwise. Figs. 2 to 5 are for additive aggregation, while Fig. 7 is for non-additive aggregation [Shi; V Performance…]. The motivation to enabling accurate statistical aggregates of sensing data while providing strong user privacy in urban sensing systems [Shi; Intro…].
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Moussa-Shi combination discloses wherein each multiset of messages was produced by:
randomly selecting, by one or more computing devices, a message value for each of one or more first messages; determining, by the one or more computing devices, an intermediate sum of the message values of the one or more first messages; and setting, by the one or more computing devices, a message value of a final message equal to the private value minus the intermediate sum modulo a first parameter value (aggregation functions such as Sum, Average, Variance, Count, Max/Min, Median, Histogram, and Percentile with accurate aggregation results. This binary search continues until the query result is equal to σU and the suspicion range of the percentile is reduced to one. The final count index [Shi; II System…, III Privacy…]. . The motivation to enabling accurate statistical aggregates of sensing data while providing strong user privacy in urban sensing systems [Shi; Intro…].
Regarding claim 10, Moussa-Shi combination discloses the computing system of claim 9, wherein randomly selecting a message value comprises uniformly and randomly sampling, by the one or more computing devices, one of a plurality of available values, wherein the plurality of available values comprises a set of integers extending from zero to the first parameter value minus one (an aggregation counter Dl, which is equal to zero for l /∈ Ψ. Each [Shi; II System…, III Privacy…]. . The motivation to enabling accurate statistical aggregates of sensing data while providing strong user privacy in urban sensing systems [Shi; Intro…].
Regarding claim 11, Moussa-Shi combination discloses the computing system of claim 9, wherein a number of messages of the one or more first messages is controlled by a message control parameter value (message block sequence and order [Moussa; ¶29; Figs. 2-4 and associated texts]).
Regarding claim 12, Moussa-Shi combination discloses the computing system of claim 9, wherein at least one private value of the plurality of private values comprises a noised private value that was produced by adding noise to a raw private value, wherein adding noise to the raw private value comprises pre-randomizing, by the one or more computing devices, the raw private value according to a shared noise probability to obtain the noised private value (reorder the blocks into a random order provided the random order is not the proper order [Moussa; ¶29-32; Figs. 2-4 and associated texts]).
Regarding claim 13, Moussa-Shi combination discloses the computing system of claim 9, wherein the computing system comprises one or more server devices and the one or more computing devices comprise a user device [Moussa; ¶29-32; Figs. 2-4 and associated texts].
Regarding claim 14, Moussa-Shi combination discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein at least one private value of the plurality of private values comprises one or more of: an update value for a parameter of a machine-learned model; a heavy hitter value; an entropy value; a quantization value; or a support size value (each has value can be evaluated using a hash function H on the basis of data in block B.sub.n and the shared secret [Moussa; ¶29-41; Figs. 2-4 and associated texts]).
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http:ljwww.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAO Q HO whose telephone number is (571)270-5998. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAO Q HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
1 The MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) incorporates the revised guidance and subsequent updates at § 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020).
Prosecution Insights