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 Objections
Claim 2-3 and 16-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: The term “clause” is used in the claims that are inconsistent with the other claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (U.S. Pub 2020/0027184 A1)
Claim
Miller discloses a system, comprising (fig. 1, system 100):
a non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon (fig. 9, memory 913, 914, 916); and
at least one processor operatively coupled to the non-transitory memory, and configured to read the instructions to (fig. 9, processor 912):
obtain one or more query messages having a natural language format (fig. 2a, user inputs a service request in natural language in box 210);
generate a user request (extracted requirements) associated with one or more items (service providers) by processing the one or more query messages (service request) using a natural language processing model (request analyzer) ([0032], line 1-6, “… the request analyzer 132… extract requirements of the service requests… 118 that may be… embedded within natural language phrases… the request analyzer 132 may implement pattern recognition… (e.g., supervised classification, unsupervised classification, etc.)…” [0051], line 1-4, “… the request analyzer 132 compares the extracted requirements associated with the service requests with credentials of the service providers 118 stored in the database 130…” <examiner note: the request analyzer extracts requirements in the service request and uses the extracted request to query/search the database for service providers that meet the extracted requirements>), the user request including item information associated with the one or more items (fig. 2a, item information [Wingdings font/0xF3] vehicle type, feature of vehicle, certain license of driver, credentials associate with service providers), a fulfillment type for managing the one or more items (delivery, drive from A to B), and a data operation type for processing the item information (searching for service providers in databases); and
in response to the user request:
identify an information source including a set of candidate information items associated with the item information based on the data operation type ([0017], line 1-4, “… After a request is provided, the system analyzes and filters the qualifications to identify service providers having qualifications that match the requirements of the request…” [0032], line 1-4, “… the request analyzer 132 processes and/or analyzes the data/information that may be stored in the database 130…”);
generate one or more information items from the set of candidate information items provided by the information source based on the fulfillment type ([0017], line 4-5, “… A list including the identified service providers is then generated…” fig. 4 displays a list of service providers that can provide delivery services);
identify a target user based on at least the data operation type (fig. 4, the list of providers provides returned based on the database search to the user who make the service request. Further a target user can be a person (e.g., john Smith) who provides the delivery service as shown in fig. 6); and
generate instructions to display the one or more information items on an electronic device associated with the target user (fig. 4 interactive custom report or fig. 6 booking report).
Claim 2
Claim 1 is included, Miller discloses the information source includes a plurality of data sets stored in one or more databases; the fulfillment type is selected from a delivery option associated with a first data set, a shipping option associated with a second data set, and a pickup option associated with a third data set; and the one or more information items are extracted based on at least one of the first data set, the second data set, and the third data set stored in the one or more databases based on the fulfillment type ([0032], line 1-6, “… the request analyzer 132… extract requirements of the service requests… 118 that may be… embedded within natural language phrases… the request analyzer 132 may implement pattern recognition… (e.g., supervised classification, unsupervised classification, etc.)…” [0051], line 1-4, “… the request analyzer 132 compares the extracted requirements associated with the service requests with credentials of the service providers 118 stored in the database 130…”)
Claim 3
Claim 1 is included, Miller further discloses wherein: the information source includes a database, each candidate information item is stored with a fulfillment indicator in the database; and the one or more information items are extracted from the database based on the fulfillment indicator of each of the one or more information items (fig. 3a, each service providers enter his qualifications (e.g., fulfillment indicator [Wingdings font/0xF3] delivery) into his profile and stored in database. Fig. 4 shows each service providers with their fulfillment indication in col 420)
Claim 4
Claim 1 is included, Miller discloses wherein: the data operation type is selected from a search option, a refinement option, and an engagement option (fig. 2a, box 210: service request in natural language, box 206 refinement and box 426 in fig.4 as engagement option); and a first user belonging to a first user group and providing the one or more query messages is identified as the target user in accordance with a determination that the data operation type is the search option or the refinement option (fig. 4, a first user is the one needs a service, the system searches (based on requirements and refinement in fig. 2a) the database and returns a list of service providers)
Claim 5
Claim 1 is included, Miller further discloses wherein: the data operation type is selected from a search option, a refinement option, and an engagement option (fig. 2a, box 210: service request in natural language, box 206 as refinement option, and box 426 in fig.4 as engagement options); a first user belongs to a first user group and provides the one or more query messages (fig. 1, customers 116 provide request information); and at least a second user belonging to a second user group associated with the system is identified as the target user in accordance with a determination that the data operation type is the engagement option (fig. 6, second user [Wingdings font/0xF3] John Smith, service provider is selected in fig. 4)
Claim 6
Claim 1 is included, Miller discloses wherein: the data operation type includes a search option for which a database is identified as the information source, and the target user includes a first user who provides the one or more query messages (fig. 1, customers 116 provide request information); and the one or more information items are identified in a search of the database based on the item information and the fulfillment type, and displayed on a user interface as a search result to the first user (fig. 4 shows a list of service providers that requirements (e.g., fulfillment [Wingdings font/0xF3] delivery) in the service request to the first user)
Claim 7
Claim 1 is included, Miller discloses wherein: the one or more query messages are obtained while the set of candidate information items is displayed on a user interface to a first user who provides the one or more query messages (fig. 4 shows a list of service providers along with features (e.g., provider, rating, experience, delivery…”); the data operation type includes a refinement option for which the information source includes the user interface and the target user includes the first user (fig. 2a, box 206 are refinement option to let the first user add/remove criteria); and the set of information items is filtered based on the fulfillment type to generate the one or more information items for display on the user interface (fig. 4 displays service providers that meet requirements [Wingdings font/0xF3] delivery)
Claim 8
Claim 1 is included, Miller discloses wherein: the one or more query messages are obtained while the one or more information items are already displayed on a user interface to a first user who provides the one or more query messages (fig. 4 shows information [Wingdings font/0xF3] list of service providers to the user who input service request), the set of candidate information items including the one or more information items (fig. 4 a list of service providers); the data operation type includes an engagement option for which the information source includes the user interface and the target user includes a second user (fig. 4, engagement option [Wingdings font/0xF3] select service provider 426, fig. 6 displays target user includes a second user who provides service); and an engagement request is generated based on the one or more information items, and the one or more information items are displayed to the target user in response to the engagement request (fig. 6)
Claim 9
Claim 1 is included, Miller discloses further comprising instructions to: execute a user application including enabling display of a user interface; enable display of a voice assistant affordance item on the user interface, independently of content concurrently displayed on the user interface; and in response to detection of a user action on the voice assistance affordance item, obtaining an audio signal collected via a microphone, wherein a subset of the audio signal is converted to the one or more query messages (0016], line 1, “… [0016] Customers may input requests…” [0019], “… customer text or audio… is received and/or analyzed to extract requirements…” [0032], line 1-6, “… the request analyzer 132… extract requirements of the service requests… 118 that may be… embedded within natural language phrases… the request analyzer 132 may implement pattern recognition… (e.g., supervised classification, unsupervised classification, etc.)…” [0051], line 1-4, “… the request analyzer 132 compares the extracted requirements associated with the service requests with credentials of the service providers 118 stored in the database 130…”)
Claim 10
Claim 1 is included, Miller discloses execute a user application including enabling display of a user interface associated with a user application, wherein the one or more query messages are entered by a first user on the user interface (fig. 2a)
Claim 11 is similar to claim 1. The claim is rejected based on the same reason
Claim 12
Claim 11 is included, Miller discloses wherein the one or more query messages includes a sequence of two or more query messages in the natural language format (fig. 2a, box 210 include a sequence of user’s requirement), and the instructions to generate the user request further comprise instructions to: generate a context including a plurality of context terms by processing each of the sequence of two or more query messages using the natural language processing model separately, wherein the user request is generated based on the context (fig. 2a, context terms [Wingdings font/0xF3] delivery, van, a3x3, flat bottom, 2.5 ft clearance height, air-conditioned/heated, The service request is created based on the context terms)
Claim 13
Claim 11 is included, Miller discloses wherein the item information includes an item type (fig. 2a, service type), and each of the one or more information items represents a respective item of the item type and includes one or more of: a brand name, a quantity (fig. 2a a van), a package size, a price, and an image of the respective item.
Claim 14
Claim 11 is included, Miller discloses further comprising instructions to: enable display of a user interface including a first information item; and while the first information item is displayed, determine that the item information recites an item without specifying an item type or an item name, wherein at least one of the one or more information items is generated based on the first information item (fig. 6 display information regarding the service provider, a first information item: requirement extracted from user request, item information: van, a/c, flatbed are from database)
Claim 15-20 are similar to claim 1-6. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 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
A system, comprising:
a non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon; and
at least one processor operatively coupled to the non-transitory memory, and configured to read the instructions to:
obtain one or more query messages having a natural language format;
generate a user request associated with one or more items by processing the one or more query messages using a natural language processing model, the user request including item information associated with the one or more items, a fulfillment type for managing the one or more items, and a data operation type for processing the item information; and
in response to the user request:
e1) identify an information source including a set of candidate information items associated with the item information based on the data operation type;
e2) generate one or more information items from the set of candidate information items provided by the information source based on the fulfillment type;
e3) identify a target user based on at least the data operation type; and
e4) generate instructions to display the one or more information items on an electronic device associated with the target user.
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least a system performs at least one step or act, including steps a) - e). Thus, the claim is a system claim, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: 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.
Step d) generate a user request associated with one or more items by processing the one or more query messages using a natural language processing model, the user request including item information associated with the one or more items, a fulfillment type for managing the one or more items, and a data operation type for processing the item information. This step is nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea) because this step composes (i.e., construct or build) a user request based on user’s requirements. The user request includes components i) item information associated with one or more items, ii) fulfillment type, and iii) data operation type.
Step e) in response to the user request:
e1) identify an information source including a set of candidate information items associated with the item information based on the data operation type. This step is nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea) because identify an information source based on evaluating the feature iii) of the user request.
e2) generate one or more information items from the set of candidate information items provided by the information source based on the fulfillment type is an observation or evaluations candidate information items based on fulfillment type (i.e., filtering data to obtain a subset of data that meet criteria). This step is nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea)
e3) identify a target user based on at least the data operation type. This step is nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea)
“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. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, steps b, c, and f fall within the mathematical process grouping of abstract ideas and steps d and e fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Limitations (b) - (f) are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: 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 claim recites the additional elements/limitations
a non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon; and
at least one processor operatively coupled to the non-transitory memory, and configured to read the instructions to:
obtain one or more query messages having a natural language format;
e4) generate instructions to display the one or more information items on an electronic device associated with the target user.
“a natural language processing model”
MPEP § 2106.05(a) "Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field."
There is no improvement to Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field. Limitation “system”, “a non-transitory memory”, “processor”, and “a natural language processing model” are generic computer components, limitation c) is simply collecting/obtaining data, and e4) displaying the results. These limitations do not make any improvements to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, or any other technologies.
b) MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine. The judicial exception does not apply to any particular machine.
The claim are silent regarding specific limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or Internet, nor do applicant direct examiner’s attention to such specific limitations. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea on 'an Internet computer network' or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea."). Applying this reasoning here, the claim is not directed to a particular machine, but rather merely implement an abstract idea using generic computer components such as “system”, “a non-transitory memory”, “processor”, and “a natural language processing model”. Thus, the claims fail to satisfy the "tied to a particular machine" prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
c) MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
The limitation c) and e4) of the claim operates to collecting/obtaining data and displaying output results. The steps are not a "transformation or reduction of an article into a different state or thing constituting patent-eligible subject matter[.]" See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd sub nom, Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("The mere manipulation or reorganization of data ... does not satisfy the transformation prong."). Applying this guidance here, the claims fail to satisfy the transformation prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
d) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
This section of the MPEP guides: Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. 450 U.S. 175, ... (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation ( an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press. 450 U.S. at 177-78 .... The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184... In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S._ .... In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The limitations c) collecting data and e4) displaying the calculated result are not meaningful limitations because collecting and displaying are pre and post-solution activities. The limitations are not meaningful limitations.
e) MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The limitations c) collecting data and e4) displaying the calculated result are not meaningful limitations because collecting and displaying are pre and post-solution activities.
f) MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or post-solution activity-such as identifying a relevant audience, a category of use, field of use, or technological environment. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “system”, “a non-transitory memory”, “processor”, and “a natural language processing model” limitations are simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the additional limitations a) -c), “a natural language processing model”, and e4) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite any non-convention or non-generic arrangement because collecting data, ranking collected data, and displaying the results are all conventional activities. Taking these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when the elements are taken individually. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 2 recites “the information source includes a plurality of data sets stored in one or more databases; the fulfillment type is selected from a delivery option associated with a first data set, a shipping option associated with a second data set, and a pickup option associated with a third data set; and the one or more information items are extracted based on at least one of the first data set, the second data set, and the third data set stored in the one or more databases based on the fulfillment type.” This limitation is pre-solution activities. Further, extracting data based on criteria is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea). The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 3 recites “the information source includes a database; each candidate information item is stored with a fulfillment indicator in the database; and the one or more information items are extracted from the database based on the fulfillment indicator of each of the one or more information items.” This limitation is pre-solution activities. Further, extracting data based on criteria is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea). The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 4 recites “the data operation type is selected from a search option, a refinement option, and an engagement option; and a first user belonging to a first user group and providing the one or more query messages is identified as the target user in accordance with a determination that the data operation type is the search option or the refinement option.” This limitation is pre-solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 5 recites “the data operation type is selected from a search option, a refinement option, and an engagement option; a first user belongs to a first user group and provides the one or more query messages; and at least a second user belonging to a second user group associated with the system is identified as the target user in accordance with a determination that the data operation type is the engagement option.” This limitation is pre-solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 6 recites “the data operation type includes a search option for which a database is identified as the information source, and the target user includes a first user who provides the one or more query messages; and the one or more information items are identified in a search of the database based on the item information and the fulfillment type, and displayed on a user interface as a search result to the first user.” This limitation is pre-post solution activities. Further, extracting data based on criteria is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea). The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 7 recites “ the one or more query messages are obtained while the set of candidate information items is displayed on a user interface to a first user who provides the one or more query messages; the data operation type includes a refinement option for which the information source includes the user interface and the target user includes the first user; and the set of information items is filtered based on the fulfillment type to generate the one or more information items for display on the user interface.” This limitation is pre-post solution activities. Further, extracting data based on criteria is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea). The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 8 recites “the one or more query messages are obtained while the one or more information items are already displayed on a user interface to a first user who provides the one or more query messages, the set of candidate information items including the one or more information items; the data operation type includes an engagement option for which the information source includes the user interface and the target user includes a second user; and an engagement request is generated based on the one or more information items, and the one or more information items are displayed to the target user in response to the engagement request.” This limitation is pre solution activities. Further, extracting data based on criteria is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea). The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 9 recites “execute a user application including enabling display of a user interface; enable display of a voice assistant affordance item on the user interface, independently of content concurrently displayed on the user interface; and in response to detection of a user action on the voice assistance affordance item, obtaining an audio signal collected via a microphone, wherein a subset of the audio signal is converted to the one or more query messages.” This limitation is pre solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 10 recites “execute a user application including enabling display of a user interface associated with a user application, wherein the one or more query messages are entered by a first user on the user interface.” This limitation is pre solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 is similar to claim 1. The claim is rejected based on the same reasons.
Claim 12 depends on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Claim 12 recites “wherein the one or more query messages includes a sequence of two or more query messages in the natural language format, and the instructions to generate the user request further comprise instructions to: generate a context including a plurality of context terms by processing each of the sequence of two or more query messages using the natural language processing model separately, wherein the user request is generated based on the context.” This limitation is pre solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 depends on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Claim 13 recites “wherein the item information includes an item type, and each of the one or more information items represents a respective item of the item type and includes one or more of: a brand name, a quantity, a package size, a price, and an image of the respective item.” This limitation is pre solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 depends on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Claim 14 recites “enable display of a user interface including a first information item; and while the first information item is displayed, determine that the item information recites an item without specifying an item type or an item name, wherein at least one of the one or more information items is generated based on the first information item.” This limitation is pre solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 15-20 are similar to claims 1-6. The claim is rejected based on the same reasons.
Conclusion
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