DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response filed 30 September 2026 has been considered and entered. Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-10, 13, 15-17, 19, 20, 21, and 22 are pending in this application. Claims 2, 4, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 18 are cancelled; claim 20 is as previously presented; claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-10, 13, 15-17, 19, 21, and 22 are currently amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 August 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
As to claim 20, applicant lists claim 20 as “Previously Presented) but has removed all language from the claim without any markup. This is non-compliant with 37 CFR §1.121 and due to the changes, it is unclear whether applicant is intending to claim the previous language of claim 20 or cancel the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant lists claim 20 as “Previously Presented) but has removed all language from the claim without any markup. The claim no longer further limits any subject matter of any claim and therefore is not compliant with 35 USC §112(d). For the purpose of examination, claim 20 will be interpreted as being cancelled.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-10, 13, 15-17, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (previously presented)(US 8,639,701 B1), hereinafter Lim, in view of Cencini (previously presented)(US 2006/0277189 A1).
As to claim 1, Lim discloses a content search method, comprising:
acquiring search information input by a user in response to a search operation triggered by the user (Figs. 6-7; Col. 4, Lines 24-31; Col. 5, Lines 22-34; Col. 9, Lines 49-61, E.g. A user selects “translated foreign pages” as a search operation trigger. In response, search information input by the user is acquired from search field 604.);
generating a search field based on the search information in response to acquiring the search information (Figs. 2 and 7, #206; Col. 4, Lines 42-55; A search field, e.g. a translated query, is generated based on the user supplied search information, e.g. the query in 604.);
searching for data information matched with the search field to obtain a search result in response to generating the search field (Figs. 2 and 7, #208; Col. 4, Lines 56-67; Information in databases maintained by a search system for each language is searched for data matching the translated queries.);
determining a system language corresponding to a terminal device of the user (Fig. 7; Col. 5, Lines 15-23; Col. 10, Lines 11-18, The input language of the user provided via the terminal device of the user providing the inputs, and thus corresponding to a terminal device of the user, is determined for translating results back into said input language.) ;
in response
performing a translation operation on the search result according to the system language to obtain a translation result (Fig. 7; Col. 5, Lines 15-22; Col. 10, Lines 11-28, Results that are not in the system language are translated into the system language and displayed.), and
performing a splicing operation on the translation result and the search result by a pre-set character to obtain a splicing result (Figs. 7-8; Col. 10, Lines 28-52, Upon user selection, the original search result and the translation can be spliced together by a pre-set character, e.g. at least those of “HIDE ORIGINAL TEXT” and/or the character represented by the blank new line separating them, for simultaneous display); and
displaying the splicing result in a display interface in response to obtaining the splicing result, wherein the splicing result comprises the search result matched with the system language (Figs. 7-8; Col. 10, Lines 28-52, Upon user selection, the original search result and the translation can be spliced together by a pre-set character, e.g. at least those of “HIDE ORIGINAL TEXT” and/or the character represented by the blank new line separating them, for simultaneous display as the search result (not translated) matched with the system language result translation.).
Lim does not specifically disclose determining a system language corresponding to a terminal device of the user after obtaining the search result; detecting whether language information corresponding to the search result is matched with the system language in response to determining the system language;
in response to detecting that the language information corresponding to the search result is not matched with the system language: then performing the translating.
However, Cencini discloses determining a system language corresponding to a terminal device of the user after obtaining the search result (Fig. 4, #404-406; [0039], Documents are identified as search results. In response, language differences are identified. This is done “Once the user's and the documents' languages are identified”, thus after obtaining the results. User language can be determined from a variety of ways including from the query, information from the user’s computer, and location);
detecting whether language information corresponding to the search result is matched with the system language in response to determining the system language (Fig. 4, #406; [0039], “Once the user's and the documents' languages are identified, a comparison is made to determine which documents are not composed in the desired language.”);
in response to detecting that the language information corresponding to the search result is not matched with the system language (Fig. 4; #408; [0040], “the translation operation is performed on the text of each document whose language differs from the desired language”. I.e. a comparison is made, and those that differ are translated.):
performing a translation operation on the search result according to the system language to obtain a translation result (Fig. 4; #408; [0040], “the translation operation is performed on the text of each document whose language differs from the desired language”. I.e. a comparison is made, and those that differ are translated.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lim with the teachings of Cencini by modifying Lim such that when the user selects documents to be searched in the language of the user’s system in addition to other languages, then the system of Lim detects for each results if it matches the user’s language before attempting to translate them like is done by Cencini, and then upon determining the language is different, then translate like is also done by Cencini. Said artisan would have been motivated to do so in order to provide the unified search results of Lim while attempting to save translation processing resources by determining to only translate results not in the system language.
As to claim 9, Lim discloses an electronic device, comprising at least one processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store computer-executable instructions (Col. 12, Lines 35-55); and
the at least one processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions stored in the memory so as to perform a content search method, comprising (Col. 12, Lines 35-55):
acquiring search information input by a user in response to a search operation triggered by the user (Figs. 6-7; Col. 4, Lines 24-31; Col. 5, Lines 22-34; Col. 9, Lines 49-61, E.g. A user selects “translated foreign pages” as a search operation trigger. In response, search information input by the user is acquired from search field 604.);
generating a search field based on the search information in response to acquiring the search information (Figs. 2 and 7, #206; Col. 4, Lines 42-55; A search field, e.g. a translated query, is generated based on the user supplied search information, e.g. the query in 604.);
searching for data information matched with the search field to obtain a search result in response to generating the search field (Figs. 2 and 7, #208; Col. 4, Lines 56-67; Information in databases maintained by a search system for each language is searched for data matching the translated queries.);
determining a system language corresponding to a terminal device of the user (Fig. 7; Col. 5, Lines 15-23; Col. 10, Lines 11-18, The input language of the user provided via the terminal device of the user providing the inputs, and thus corresponding to a terminal device of the user, is determined for translating results back into said input language.) ;
in response
performing a translation operation on the search result according to the system language to obtain a translation result (Fig. 7; Col. 5, Lines 15-22; Col. 10, Lines 11-28, Results that are not in the system language are translated into the system language and displayed.), and
performing a splicing operation on the translation result and the search result by a pre-set character to obtain a splicing result (Figs. 7-8; Col. 10, Lines 28-52, Upon user selection, the original search result and the translation can be spliced together by a pre-set character, e.g. at least those of “HIDE ORIGINAL TEXT” and/or the character represented by the blank new line separating them, for simultaneous display); and
displaying the splicing result in a display interface in response to obtaining the splicing result, wherein the splicing result comprises the search result matched with the system language (Figs. 7-8; Col. 10, Lines 28-52, Upon user selection, the original search result and the translation can be spliced together by a pre-set character, e.g. at least those of “HIDE ORIGINAL TEXT” and/or the character represented by the blank new line separating them, for simultaneous display as the search result (not translated) matched with the system language result translation.).
Lim does not specifically disclose determining a system language corresponding to a terminal device of the user after obtaining the search result; detecting whether language information corresponding to the search result is matched with the system language in response to determining the system language;
in response to detecting that the language information corresponding to the search result is not matched with the system language: then performing the translating.
However, Cencini discloses determining a system language corresponding to a terminal device of the user after obtaining the search result (Fig. 4, #404-406; [0039], Documents are identified as search results. In response, language differences are identified. This is done “Once the user's and the documents' languages are identified”, thus after obtaining the results. User language can be determined from a variety of ways including from the query, information from the user’s computer, and location);
detecting whether language information corresponding to the search result is matched with the system language in response to determining the system language (Fig. 4, #406; [0039], “Once the user's and the documents' languages are identified, a comparison is made to determine which documents are not composed in the desired language.”);
in response to detecting that the language information corresponding to the search result is not matched with the system language (Fig. 4; #408; [0040], “the translation operation is performed on the text of each document whose language differs from the desired language”. I.e. a comparison is made, and those that differ are translated.):
performing a translation operation on the search result according to the system language to obtain a translation result (Fig. 4; #408; [0040], “the translation operation is performed on the text of each document whose language differs from the desired language”. I.e. a comparison is made, and those that differ are translated.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lim with the teachings of Cencini by modifying Lim such that when the user selects documents to be searched in the language of the user’s system in addition to other languages, then the system of Lim detects for each results if it matches the user’s language before attempting to translate them like is done by Cencini, and then upon determining the language is different, then translate like is also done by Cencini. Said artisan would have been motivated to do so in order to provide the unified search results of Lim while attempting to save translation processing resources by determining to only translate results not in the system language.
As to claim 10, Lim discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions stored therein, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by at least one processor, are configured to implement a content search method, comprising (Col. 12, Lines 35-67):
acquiring search information input by a user in response to a search operation triggered by the user (Figs. 6-7; Col. 4, Lines 24-31; Col. 5, Lines 22-34; Col. 9, Lines 49-61, E.g. A user selects “translated foreign pages” as a search operation trigger. In response, search information input by the user is acquired from search field 604.);
generating a search field based on the search information in response to acquiring the search information (Figs. 2 and 7, #206; Col. 4, Lines 42-55; A search field, e.g. a translated query, is generated based on the user supplied search information, e.g. the query in 604.);
searching for data information matched with the search field to obtain a search result in response to generating the search field (Figs. 2 and 7, #208; Col. 4, Lines 56-67; Information in databases maintained by a search system for each language is searched for data matching the translated queries.);
determining a system language corresponding to a terminal device of the user (Fig. 7; Col. 5, Lines 15-23; Col. 10, Lines 11-18, The input language of the user provided via the terminal device of the user providing the inputs, and thus corresponding to a terminal device of the user, is determined for translating results back into said input language.) ;
in response
performing a translation operation on the search result according to the system language to obtain a translation result (Fig. 7; Col. 5, Lines 15-22; Col. 10, Lines 11-28, Results that are not in the system language are translated into the system language and displayed.), and
performing a splicing operation on the translation result and the search result by a pre-set character to obtain a splicing result (Figs. 7-8; Col. 10, Lines 28-52, Upon user selection, the original search result and the translation can be spliced together by a pre-set character, e.g. at least those of “HIDE ORIGINAL TEXT” and/or the character represented by the blank new line separating them, for simultaneous display); and
displaying the splicing result in a display interface in response to obtaining the splicing result, wherein the splicing result comprises the search result matched with the system language (Figs. 7-8; Col. 10, Lines 28-52, Upon user selection, the original search result and the translation can be spliced together by a pre-set character, e.g. at least those of “HIDE ORIGINAL TEXT” and/or the character represented by the blank new line separating them, for simultaneous display as the search result (not translated) matched with the system language result translation.).
Lim does not specifically disclose determining a system language corresponding to a terminal device of the user after obtaining the search result; detecting whether language information corresponding to the search result is matched with the system language in response to determining the system language;
in response to detecting that the language information corresponding to the search result is not matched with the system language: then performing the translating.
However, Cencini discloses determining a system language corresponding to a terminal device of the user after obtaining the search result (Fig. 4, #404-406; [0039], Documents are identified as search results. In response, language differences are identified. This is done “Once the user's and the documents' languages are identified”, thus after obtaining the results. User language can be determined from a variety of ways including from the query, information from the user’s computer, and location);
detecting whether language information corresponding to the search result is matched with the system language in response to determining the system language (Fig. 4, #406; [0039], “Once the user's and the documents' languages are identified, a comparison is made to determine which documents are not composed in the desired language.”);
in response to detecting that the language information corresponding to the search result is not matched with the system language (Fig. 4; #408; [0040], “the translation operation is performed on the text of each document whose language differs from the desired language”. I.e. a comparison is made, and those that differ are translated.):
performing a translation operation on the search result according to the system language to obtain a translation result (Fig. 4; #408; [0040], “the translation operation is performed on the text of each document whose language differs from the desired language”. I.e. a comparison is made, and those that differ are translated.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lim with the teachings of Cencini by modifying Lim such that when the user selects documents to be searched in the language of the user’s system in addition to other languages, then the system of Lim detects for each results if it matches the user’s language before attempting to translate them like is done by Cencini, and then upon determining the language is different, then translate like is also done by Cencini. Said artisan would have been motivated to do so in order to provide the unified search results of Lim while attempting to save translation processing resources by determining to only translate results not in the system language.
As to claims 3, 13, and 19, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1, 9, and 10 above. In addition, Lim, as previously modified with Cencini, discloses wherein the performing a translation operation on the search result according to the system language to obtain a translation result comprises:
in response to the system language being a pre-set first language (Lim, Fig. 7 “My Language”; Cencini, [0044], The system language is at least preset by the user.), detecting whether the search result comprises a keyword (Lim, Col. 8, Lines 2-19, E.g. categories classifying documents; Cencini, [0028], [0039], E.g. metadata of a result document specifying its language, i.e. a keyword, is detected.); and
in response to the search result comprising the keyword, translating a field, in the search result, other than the keyword into the first language to obtain the translation result (Cencini, Fig. 5B; [0030], [0048]; Portions of the result document itself, i.e. one or more other fields than the keyword, are translated. Likewise, this is done with the results of Lim (Lim, Figs. 2 and 7, #210 and 702; Col. 5, Lines 1-23; Col. 10, Lines 1-18).).
As to claims 5, 15, and 21, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1, 9, and 10 above. In addition, Lim, as previously modified with Cencini, does not explicitly disclose the performing a splicing operation on the translation result and the search result by a pre-set character to obtain a splicing result comprises:
splicing the translation result at a rear side of the search result by a pre-set first character to obtain the splicing result;
or splicing the translation result at a lower side of the search result by a pre-set second character to obtain the splicing result.
Rather Lim discloses splicing the translation result at a higher side of the search result by a pre-set second character to obtain the splicing result (Lim, Fig. 8; The translation result is below the ).
However, Lim also discloses that the language search result can be presented in multiple locations, i.e. “inline below the translated search result, without changing any other search results, or can be presented in a separate portion of a user interface presenting the search results” (Lim, Col. 5, Lines 40-44).
Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the placement of the translation could be moved in any location while remaining proximate to the non-translation; e.g. above, below, before, or rear side; without undue experimentation and a reasonable expectation of success by merely adjusting display position code in the web page of Lim, with the motivation to maintain and show the user relevance of the results to each other as is already performed in the exemplary orientation of Lim, e.g. in Fig. 8.
As to claims 6, 16, and 22, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 4, 14, and 20 above. In addition, Lim, as previously modified with Cencini, discloses after the performing a splicing operation on the translation result and the search result by a pre-set character to obtain a splicing result, the method further comprises:
in response to an editing request triggered by the user for the search result, acquiring the search result in the splicing result according to the character in the splicing result (Lim, Figs. 9-10; Col. 5, Lines 23-34; Col. 10, Line 43-Col. 11, Line 10; Any time after results are obtained, which includes a user splicing as previously discussed, the user can edit search results by refining the query used to obtain them. E.g. by modifying the translation query using a pre-set trigger to select the translation for editing; or by modifying the languages by using a pre-set trigger to add/remove languages.); and
performing an editing operation on the search result according to a pre-set trigger operation of the user for the search result (Lim, Figs. 9-10; Col. 5, Lines 23-34; Col. 10, Line 43-Col. 11, Line 10; Any time after results are obtained, which includes a user splicing as previously discussed, the user can edit search results by refining the query used to obtain them. E.g. by modifying the translation query using a pre-set trigger to select the translation for editing; or by modifying the languages by using a pre-set trigger to add/remove languages.).
As to claims 7 and 17, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9 above. In addition, Lim, as previously modified with Cencini, discloses acquiring a search field generated by the user based on a pre-set content input control in response to a trigger operation of the user for a pre-set translation control (Lim, Figs. 2, 7, and 9, #206; Col. 4, Lines 42-55; Col. 10, Line 53-Col. 11, Line 3; A search field, e.g. a translated query, is generated based on the user supplied search information, e.g. the query in 604. This acquired search field is can be generated by the user via editing the translation as in Fig. 9 #902, and is acquired in response to the user selecting a pre-set content input control, e.g. the search button 904.);
wherein the acquiring the search field generated by the user based on a pre-set content input control in response to a trigger operation of the user for a pre-set translation control comprises:
acquiring an input content generated by the user in response to a content input operation triggered by the user (Lim, Figs. 2, 7, and 9, #206; Col. 4, Lines 42-55; Col. 10, Line 53-Col. 11, Line 3; The edited translated query originates as an input content typed by the user in 902 in response to the user triggering input operation via the edit button 712.);
storing the input content in a pre-set storage path in response to a pre-set trigger operation of the user in a display page (Lim, Fig. 9, The input content is stored in box 902, i.e. a pre-set storage path.); and
acquiring the input content from the pre-set storage path in response to the trigger operation of the user for the translation control, and determining the input content as the search field (Lim, Fig. 9; Col. 10, Line 53-Col. 11, Line 3; The input content is acquired from the box, and processed into a search field for matching results as previously discussed.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. For Examiner’s response, see discussion below:
(a) Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, with respect to the rejections of claims 7 and 17 under 35 USC §112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 7 and 17 under 35 USC §112(b) have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
(b) Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, with respect to the rejections of claims 10, 19, 21, and 22 under 35 USC §101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 10, 19, 21, and 22 under 35 USC §101 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
(c) At pages 10-12, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1, 9, and 10 under 35 USC §102, Applicant argues that Lim does not disclose amended features of the claim.
As to (c), Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection under 35 USC §103 set forth above as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
(d) At pages 12-13, with respect to the prior art rejections of independent claims 1, 9, and 10, Applicant argues that Lim does not suggest detecting a language mismatch for each search result, and in response, both translating the result and splicing the translation with the original result by a pre-set character. Applicant argues that Lim optionally allows a user to view the original language version alongside or below a translated result. Applicant states that Lim’s optional display of the original text is a user-selectable presentation toggle that leaves the original and translated versions as separate display elements and does not perform an automatic splicing operation conditioned on language-mismatch detection.
As to (d), Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Nothing in the claims state that the splicing is “automatic” as Applicant argues. The claims perform operations in response to events happening, but do not prevent a user from initiating those operations in response to the events happening. For this reason alone, Applicant’s arguments are moot. Furthermore, the claim does not provide any specific details as to how the translation result and search result are spliced other than somehow, generically, using a pre-set character and that the splicing result broadly “comprises the search result matched with the system language.” Lim determines that results need translation and does so. The user, in response to this, selects text which comprises pre-set characters, which cause to display, in Applicant’s own words, “the original-language version alongside or below a translated result,” which is matching the search result with the system language as claimed, and reads on the broadly claimed feature of a “splicing operation.”
(e) At page 13, with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1, 9, and 10, Applicant argues that Cencini does not cure the splicing deficiencies of Lim.
As to (e), Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As set forth in (d) and the rejections above, Lim discloses the claimed splicing operation and Cencini is not relied upon for splicing, rendering the arguments to Cencini moot.
(f) At page 14, with respect to the rejections of dependent claims 3, 5-7, 13, 15-17, 19, 21, and 22, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for at least the reasons set forth in (c)-(e) above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES E RICHARDSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at (571) 272-9782. 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.
/James E Richardson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
