DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on April 29, 2025 has been acknowledged.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs /guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 8, & 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 8, & 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12299705. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons:
As per claim 1, this claim of the present application recites nearly identical limitations to claim 1 of ‘705 except that claim 1 of ‘705 contains additional limitations that narrow the claim when compared to claim 1 of the present claims. Accordingly, claim 1 of ‘705 contains all the elements of claim 1 in the present application, and thus, claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of '705.
As per claim 8, this claim of the present application recites nearly identical limitations to claim 15 of ‘705 except that claim 15 of ‘705 contains additional limitations that narrow the claim when compared to claim 8 of the present claims. Accordingly, claim 15 of ‘705 contains all the elements of claim 8 in the present application, and thus, claim 8 of the present application is anticipated by claim 15 of '705.
As per claim 15, this claim of the present application recites nearly identical limitations to claim 8 of ‘705 except that claim 8 of ‘705 contains additional limitations that narrow the claim when compared to claim 15 of the present claims. Accordingly, claim 8 of ‘705 contains all the elements of claim 15 in the present application, and thus, claim 15 of the present application is anticipated by claim 8 of '705.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims (claim 1, and similarly claims 2-20) recite the abstract elements of
managing … experiments, the method comprising:
collecting … from a plurality of … users, user event data related to a plurality of experiment layers each of which runs an … experiment …;
detecting … based on the user event data, a contaminated experiment layer from the plurality of experiment layers by performing a uniform distribution test for each of the plurality of experiment layers;
detecting … based on the user event data, a contaminated bucket in the contaminated experiment layer by performing a proportion test for each bucket in the contaminated experiment layer; and
removing … based on a severity level of the contaminated bucket, the contaminated bucket from the corresponding … experiment.
Claims 1-20, in view of the claim limitations, are directed to the abstract idea of managing experiments with users by collecting user event data of experiment layers from the users, detecting contaminated experimental layers and buckets in user event data by computing a uniform distribution test and a proportion test, and removing contaminated buckets from the experiment based on a severity level.
As a whole, each of the limitations above manage the human behavior of human users who are being experimented on based on user event data, including instructions for how to conduct an experiment on user behavior, such as running and closing an experiment of a human user under certain conditions based on human behavior of human user event data; therefore, the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. Further, as a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of managing experiments with users by collecting user event data of experiment layers from the users, detecting contaminated experimental layers and buckets in user event data by computing a uniform distribution test and a proportion test, and removing contaminated buckets from the experiment based on a severity level could all be reasonably interpreted as a human mentally observing user event data of experiment layers from the users, a human mentally evaluating and using judgment computing a uniform distribution test and a proportion test to detect contaminated layers and buckets based on the observed user event data, a human mentally evaluating the contaminated buckets and using judgment determining severity level of contaminated buckets, and a human mentally evaluating the severity levels and using judgment to remove contaminated buckets mentally and/or using a pen and paper; therefore, the claims recite a mental process. In addition, with respect to the dependent claims, aside from the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea addressed below under the second prong of Step 2A and 2B, the limitations of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, & 16-20 recite similar further abstract limitations to those discussed above that narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims because, aside from the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions the limitations of claims recite mental processes that can be practically performed mentally by observing, evaluating, and judging information mentally and/or with a pen and paper and recite a certain method of organizing human activity that manages business interactions and the sales and marketing activity. Accordingly, since the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of “[a] method,” “by an online engine,” “online,” and “on a website” in claim 1, and similarly in claims 8 and 15, and further, the other independent claims additionally recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of “[a] non-transitory, computer-readable medium having information recorded thereon for …, wherein the information, when read by a machine, causes the machine to perform operations comprising,” “by an online engine,” “online,” and “on a website” in claim 8, and “[a] system …, comprising: memory storing computer program instructions; and one or more processors that, in response to executing the computer program instructions, effectuate operations comprising,” “online,” and “on a website” in claim 15; however, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. In addition, these features merely generally link the abstract idea to a technical field/environment, namely a generic computing environment. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, & 16-20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s specification at [0112]-[0113] (discussing the abstract idea of invention can be implemented using generic hardware and software elements, including a personal computer and a general purpose computer). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, storing and retrieving information in memory, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, & 16-20 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-17, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 9031861 B1), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a method for managing online experiments, the method comprising (Abstract, cl. 4, ln. 15-40):
collecting, by an online engine, from a plurality of online users, user event data related to a plurality of experiment layers each of which runs an online experiment on a website (cl. 12, ln. 41-cl. 13, ln. 13, step 404, the campaign filter 112, for example, can measure the distribution of traffic (e.g., clicks) within each of the geographic locations 132a-132g relative to the overall traffic pattern across the geographic region 130 to filter the corpus of campaigns by identifying one or more candidate campaigns received by the campaign evaluation system 110 that are associated with a geographic region and can include constraints that permit pausing distribution of the content item without compromising campaign goals), cl. 7, ln. 43-47, campaigns (e.g., advertising campaigns) may include one or more content items (e.g., advertisements) which may include links to resources (e.g., web pages));
detecting, by the online engine, based on the user event data, a contaminated experiment layer from the plurality of experiment layers by performing a uniform distribution test for each of the plurality of experiment layers (cl. 12, ln. 41-cl. 13, ln. 13, the campaign filter 112 can filter the corpus of campaigns received by the campaign evaluation system 110 associated with a geographic region and can include one or more constraints that permit pausing distribution of the content item in the campaign in a portion of the geographic region by filtering out campaigns that do not have a relatively uniform distribution over the geographic region, e.g., if there is a large percentage (e.g., over a threshold percentage such as 50%, 75%, 90%, or another suitable value) of the traffic for a candidate campaign);
detecting, by the online engine, based on the user event data, a contaminated bucket in the contaminated experiment layer by performing a proportion test for each bucket in the contaminated experiment layer (cl. 12, ln. 41-cl. 13, ln. 13, the campaign filter 112 can filter the corpus of campaigns by filtering out campaigns that do not have a relatively uniform distribution over the geographic region, e.g., if there is the large percentage of the traffic for a candidate campaign is associated with a small percentage (e.g., under a threshold percentage such as 25%, 10%, 5%, or another suitable value) of geographic locations relative to the overall number of geographic locations within a geographic region); and
removing, by the online engine, based on a severity level of the contaminated bucket, the contaminated bucket from the corresponding online experiment (cl., 1, ln. 26-40, the corpus of campaigns can be filtered by identifying one or more candidate campaigns in the corpus associated with a geographic region and constraints that permit pausing, presentation of at least one content item in the geographic locations can be paused for a time period, and content item effectiveness of the content item during the time period can be measured, cl. 13, ln. 21-44, for each candidate campaign, one or more geographic locations that are included in the geographic region can be determined (406) for pausing presentation of the content item, and presentation of the content item can be paused (408) in the one or more geographic locations for a time period, cl. 12, ln. 41-cl. 13, ln. 13, if a large percentage (e.g., over a threshold percentage such as 50%, 75%, 90%, or another suitable value) of the traffic for a candidate campaign is associated with a small percentage (e.g., under a threshold percentage such as 25%, 10%, 5%, or another suitable value) of geographic locations relative to the overall number of geographic locations within a geographic region, the campaign filter 112 can filter out the candidate campaign).
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses the method of claim 1 (as above), further comprising: assigning, based on a bucket size (cl. 12, ln. 41-cl. 13, ln. 13, if a large percentage (e.g., over a threshold percentage such as 50%, 75%, 90%, or another suitable value) of the traffic for a candidate campaign is associated with a small percentage (e.g., under a threshold percentage such as 25%, 10%, 5%, or another suitable value) of geographic locations relative to the overall number of geographic locations within a geographic region, the campaign filter 112 can filter out the candidate campaign), a plurality of identifiers, each of which corresponds to one of the plurality of online users, to a corresponding bucket in each experiment layer such that a user is simultaneously associated with multiple online experiments in different experiment layers (cl. 9, ln. 27-35, pausing presentation of the content item may include presenting an alternative content item for a particular impression or over the specified time period, e.g., rather than presenting content item 140n to the user 104a, the interface 142a may present an alternate content item 140a, wherein alternate content items may be associated with the content sponsor 122a or alternate content sponsors 122n, and may be selected, for example, randomly or based on predefined selection criteria).
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses the method of claim 2 (as above), further comprising: after removing the contaminated bucket, reinstating the bucket size in the corresponding online experiment (cl. 10, ln. 41-51 & 64-cl. 11, ln. 13, wherein after pausing presentation of content item 140n in geographical location 132a for a first time period, at the conclusion of the time period, the experiment controller 116 can resume presentation of the content item 140n within the geographic location 132a in a second time period, cl. 13, ln. 31-32 & 62-cl. 14, ln. 5, presentation of the content item can be paused (408) in the one or more geographic locations for a time period, wherein pausing presentation of the content item may be cycled over different geographic locations for the campaign over time, e.g., the experiment controller 116 can pause presentation of the content item 140n within the geographic location 132a during one time period, and within the geographic location 132b during a second time period).
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses the method of claim 1 (as above), wherein the removing is based on the severity level of the contaminated bucket exceeding a threshold severity level (cl. 12, ln. 41-cl. 13, ln. 13, the campaign filter 112 can filter the corpus of campaigns by filtering out campaigns that do not have a relatively uniform distribution over the geographic region, e.g., if there is the large percentage of the traffic for a candidate campaign is associated with a small percentage (e.g., under a threshold percentage such as 25%, 10%, 5%, or another suitable value) of geographic locations relative to the overall number of geographic locations within a geographic region).
Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses the method of claim 1 (as above), wherein the uniform distribution test is used to determine whether a traffic distribution across different buckets in a given experiment layer is uniform layers (cl. 12, ln. 41-cl. 13, ln. 13, the campaign filter 112 can filter the corpus of campaigns received by the campaign evaluation system 110 associated with a geographic region and can include one or more constraints that permit pausing distribution of the content item in the campaign in a portion of the geographic region by filtering out campaigns that do not have a relatively uniform distribution over the geographic region, e.g., if there is a large percentage (e.g., over a threshold percentage such as 50%, 75%, 90%, or another suitable value) of the traffic for a candidate campaign).
Regarding claims 8-10, 12, & 13, these claims are substantially similar to claims 1-3, 5, & 6, respectively, and are, therefore, rejected on the same basis as claims 1-3, 5, & 6. While claims 8-10, 12, & 13 are directed toward a non-transitory computer-readable medium having information recorded thereon read by a machine that causes the machine to perform operations, Liu discloses a computer-readable medium as claimed. Abstract, cl. 4, ln. 15-40.
Regarding claims 15-17 & 19, these claims are substantially similar to claims 1-3 & 6, respectively, and are, therefore, rejected on the same basis as claims 1-3 & 6. While claims 15-17 & 19 are directed toward a comprising memory storing computer program instructions and processors that, in response to executing the computer program instructions, effectuate operations, Liu discloses a system as claimed. Abstract, cl. 4, ln. 15-40.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4, 7, 11, 14, 18, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 9031861 B1), hereinafter Liu, in view of He et al. (US 20170046110 A1), hereinafter He.
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses the method of claim 2 (as above). Further, while Liu discloses wherein the plurality of identifiers comprise a plurality of experiment unit identifiers (IDs), and the step of assigning the plurality of identifiers comprises: determining, for each of the plurality of online users, a corresponding experiment unit ID of the plurality of experiment unit IDs; … and assigning the identifier to the corresponding bucket in each experiment layer (cl. 9, ln. 27-35, pausing presentation of the content item may include presenting an alternative content item for a particular impression or over the specified time period, e.g., rather than presenting content item 140n to the user 104a, the interface 142a may present an alternate content item 140a, wherein alternate content items may be associated with the content sponsor 122a or alternate content sponsors 122n, and may be selected, for example, randomly or based on predefined selection criteria), Liu does not expressly disclose the following remaining elements, which however, are taught by further teachings in He.
He teaches wherein the plurality of identifiers comprise a plurality of experiment unit identifiers (IDs), and the step of assigning the plurality of identifiers comprises: determining, for each of the plurality of online users, a corresponding experiment unit ID of the plurality of experiment unit IDs ([0026], Each variation test record is associated with a web page, an experiment identifier unique to the variation test, and identifiers of different variations of a web page involved in the variation test, [0052], the content provider 106 identifies 505 an experiment identifier associated with the web page, wherein if the web page is associated with more than one experiment, the content provider 106 identifies an experiment identifier for each of the experiments associated with the web page); determining a random seed for each experiment layer ([0028], the ID assignment module 113 generates a unique random number and assigns the unique random number as a user identifier for a client device 102); calculating, for each experiment layer, a hash value associated with each of the plurality of identifiers based on the corresponding experiment unit ID and the random seed ([0033]-[0035], [0055], the variation determination module 119 applies a hash function to a concatenation of the user identifier and the experiment identifier for the variation test to generate a user identifier to determine which variation of the page to page to provide to a client device, and the variation determination module 119 normalizes the hashed user identifier to create an assignment identifier that is the basis for assigning the user to a variation of a web page); and assigning the identifier to the corresponding bucket in each experiment layer based on the calculated hash value ([0037], [0055], the variation determination module 119 determines which variation of a web page to instruct to the content provider 107 to provide to a client device 102 based on the assignment identifier for the client device 102).
Liu and He are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of selecting experimental variations of content to present to users. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Liu the ability to determine a random seed for each experiment layer, calculate a hash value associated with each of the plurality of identifiers based on the corresponding experiment unit ID and the random seed for each experiment layer, and assign the identifier to the corresponding bucket in each experiment layer based on the calculated hash value, as taught by He, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of determining a random seed for each experiment layer, calculating a hash value associated with each of the plurality of identifiers based on the corresponding experiment unit ID and the random seed for each experiment layer, and assigning the identifier to the corresponding bucket in each experiment layer based on the calculated hash value, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Liu with the aforementioned teachings of He in order to produce the added benefit of increasing selection of an advertisement and purchases of a product advertised. [0021].
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses the method of claim 1 (as above). Further, while Liu discloses wherein the proportion test is used to determine a probability of assigning an online user to each bucket in each experiment layer, and the proportion test identifies problematic … for the contaminated experiment layer (cl. 12, ln. 41-cl. 13, ln. 13, the campaign filter 112 can filter the corpus of campaigns by filtering out campaigns that do not have a relatively uniform distribution over the geographic region, e.g., if there is the large percentage of the traffic for a candidate campaign is associated with a small percentage (e.g., under a threshold percentage such as 25%, 10%, 5%, or another suitable value) of geographic locations relative to the overall number of geographic locations within a geographic region), Liu does not expressly disclose the following remaining elements, which however, are taught by further teachings in He.
He teaches hash ranges for the experiment layer ([0035], the variation determination module 119 normalizes the hashed user identifier to create an assignment identifier for assigning the user to a variation of a web page, [0039]-[0040], if a variation test for a web page includes more than two variations of the web page (e.g., one control version and two variant versions), the policy for the variation test may define a mapping between a set of different ranges of assignment identifiers and a corresponding set of variations of the web page, e.g., a policy may describe a first range of assignment identifiers that is associated with a control version of a web page, a second range of assignment identifiers that is associated with a first variant version of the web page, and a third range of assignment identifiers that is associated with a second variant version of the web page).
Liu and He are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of selecting experimental variations of content to present to users. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Liu the ability to include hash ranges for the experiment layer, as taught by He, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of identifying problematic hash ranges for the contaminated experiment layer, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Liu with the aforementioned teachings of He in order to produce the added benefit of increasing selection of an advertisement and purchases of a product advertised. [0021].
Regarding claims 11 & 14, these claims are substantially similar to claims 4 & 7, respectively, and are, therefore, rejected on the same basis as claims 4 & 7. While claims 11 & 14 are directed toward a non-transitory computer-readable medium having information recorded thereon read by a machine that causes the machine to perform operations, Liu discloses a computer-readable medium as claimed. Abstract, cl. 4, ln. 15-40.
Regarding claims 18 & 20, these claims are substantially similar to claims 4 & 7, respectively, and are, therefore, rejected on the same basis as claims 4 & 7. While claims 18 & 20 are directed toward a comprising memory storing computer program instructions and processors that, in response to executing the computer program instructions, effectuate operations, Liu discloses a system as claimed. Abstract, cl. 4, ln. 15-40.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES A GUILIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
CHARLES GUILIANO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights