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 .
Claims 1-15 are cancelled.
Claims 16-35, filed December 16, 2025, are examined on the merits.
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 16-35 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.
Step 1:
The claims recite a method, system, and computer readable medium, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1 recites “identifying at least one data item in a first row of cells in the column oriented data structure…automatically generating at least one tag based on the at least one data item stored in the first row, wherein the at least one tag is indicative of the at least one data item stored in the first row” at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind. The instant specification discloses the computing device 100 may be configured to automatically generate the tags by identifying at least one data item stored in at least a second cell of the first row of cells that is associated with at least a column that a non-tag type column. Therefore, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for generic computer components. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”).
Claims 34 and 35 are directed to a system and a non-transitory computer readable medium embodies the same abstract idea as claim 16. These claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 16, supra.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements of “one processor” and “a first device” wherein the elements are generic elements of the system, method, and/or non-transitory computer readable medium. The “one processor” and “a first device” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation of “receiving…” amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The limitation of “storing…” and “extracting…” are post-solution activities wherein a final step of storing data to a process that only recites computing the area of a space, however, does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of computing the area.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “one processor” and “a first device” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation of “receiving…” amounts to no more than insignificant pre-activity of receiving data. Further, the “receiving” step simply appends well-understood and conventional activity of receiving data over a network (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i): “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The limitation of “storing” and “extracting…” are post-solution activities wherein a final step of storing data to a process that only recites computing the area of a space, however, does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of computing the area.
Thus taken alone, the individual elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim 17 recites the column-oriented data structure allows users to insert values that have been predetermined as valid. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 18 recites the at least one aspect includes a restriction limiting to all the cells in a respective column, the restriction limitation includes at least one of: a closed list of predetermined elements, a specific numeric range, or a specific formatting constraint. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 19 recites the generated at least one tag represents a descriptive quality of data within the column-oriented data structure. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 20 recites generating the at least one tag is based on a predetermined rule applied to a non-tag type column. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 21 recites generating the at least one tag includes inserting the automatically generated at least one tag into a cell included in the first row. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 22 recites the at least one data item stored in the first row includes a name, and the automatically generated at least one tag is associated with the name. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 23 recites the at least one data item stored in the first row includes a status associated with at least one project, and the automatically generated at least one tag is associated with a priority level. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 24 recites the data repository storing the automatically generated at least one tag is associated with a cloud-based computing environment. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 25 recites the automatically generated at least one tag is stored in the column-oriented data structure. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 26 recites storing the at least one tag in the column-oriented data structure includes inserting the automatically generated at least one tag into a specific cell of the first row associated with a designated tag type column. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 27 recites the automatically generated at least one tag is stored in association with an index number corresponding to the first row. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 28 recites includes analyzing the query for identifying at least one keyword associated with the at least one tag. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 29 recites analyzing the query for identifying a plurality of tags including the at least one tag indicative of the at least one data item stored in the column-oriented data structure and at least one other tag indicative of other data items stored in another column-oriented data structure; and aggregating information from the column-oriented data structure and the another column-oriented data structure to respond to the query. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 30 recites determining whether the second device has permission to access data associated with the at least one tag. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 31 recites extracting the at least one data item includes generating a filtered board displaying only rows related to the at least one tag. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 32 recites identifying the at least one data item includes reading data from a non-tag type cell within the column-oriented data structure. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 33 recites the first row corresponds to a project, and the automatically generated at least one tag including at least one of: a priority level associated with the project, a status associated with the project or a person associated with the project. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
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) 16, 32, 34, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saeki, T. (US 20130066849 A1).
Claim 16, Saeki discloses a method for generating and managing tagged data structures, comprising:
receiving input from a first device for generating a column-oriented data structure including a plurality of columns and rows, wherein the plurality of columns are configured such that all cells in each of the plurality of columns are uniform in at least one aspect ([0129], e.g. if the tag management server receives a message and an ID from a client terminal or a receptor, the tag management server temporarily stores the message and the ID in the buffer in the memory. The buffer may also store therein data for each tag table. In such a case, if a new tag table is created, a new buffer region needs to be arranged in the memory);
identifying at least one data item stored in a first row of cells in the column-oriented data structure ([0050], e.g. FIG. 5, "day-of-week and time: Tuesday 12:00-13:00", "day-of-week and time: Monday 9:00-10:00", "location: A Prefecture, E City, F Ward", "location: A Prefecture, B City, C Town", and "road: congestion" are present as tags. Each tag table is associated with a tag);
automatically generating at least one tag based on the at least one data item stored in the first row, wherein the at least one tag is indicative of the at least one data item stored in the first row ([0050], e.g. FIG. 5, "day-of-week and time: Tuesday 12:00-13:00", "day-of-week and time: Monday 9:00-10:00", "location: A Prefecture, E City, F Ward", "location: A Prefecture, B City, C Town", and "road: congestion" are present as tags. Each tag table is associated with a tag);
storing the generated at least one tag in a data repository (Figure 1, e.g. First Storing Unit and Second Storing Unit);
receiving a query from a second device to search for specific data associated with the at least one tag ([0057], e.g. if event information and a tag are present in the received message, it may also possible for the request determining unit 35 to determine that this message is an accumulation request and output data to the ID adding unit 36. In contrast, if only a tag is present in the received message, it may also be possible for the request determining unit 35 to determine that this state is a search request and output data to the search engine 39); and
in response to the query, extracting the at least one data item ([0061], e.g. the tag retaining unit 37 extracts, as a tag from the received message, "day-of-week and time: Tuesday 12:00-13:00" and "location: A Prefecture, E City, F Ward" and "road: congestion". Similarly, the tag retaining unit 37 extracts "ID=00003879" that is added to a message).
Claim 32, Saeki discloses identifying the at least one data item includes reading data from a non-tag type cell within the column-oriented data structure ([0061], e.g. the tag retaining unit 37 extracts, as a tag from the received message, "day-of-week and time: Tuesday 12:00-13:00" and "location: A Prefecture, E City, F Ward" and "road: congestion". Similarly, the tag retaining unit 37 extracts "ID=00003879" that is added to a message).
Claims 34 and 35 recite a system and computer readable medium comprising the same steps as claim 16. Claims 34 and 35 are rejected for the same citations and rationale as claim 16 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 17, 18, 20-22, 24, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki, T. (US 20130066849 A1), as applied to claims 16, 32, 34, and 35 above, in view of Lee et al. (Lee hereafter, US 20130117232 A1).
Claim 17 Saeki discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the column-oriented data structure allows users to insert values that have been predetermined as valid. Lee discloses the column-oriented data structure allows users to insert values that have been predetermined as valid ([0033], e.g. "Reference data" typically includes one or more valid lists of data values for data points that users may insert into the tables of a database application created based on database model 102).
Lee discloses an invention for improved visibility into database model evolution and its subsidiary tooling ([0081]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated by Lee to improve the method of Saeki. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use method of Saeki with the database method of Lee. The benefit would be for improved visibility into database model evolution and its subsidiary tooling.
Claim 18, Saeki as modified discloses the at least one aspect includes a restriction limiting to all the cells in a respective column, the restriction limitation includes at least one of: a closed list of predetermined elements, a specific numeric range, or a specific formatting constraint (Lee, [0084], e.g. the format characteristics of a database model snapshot (e.g., human readable, transportable, etc.) enables compliance with technical validation rules, security considerations, legal constraints and other business policies).
Claim 20, Saeki as modified discloses generating the at least one tag is based on a predetermined rule applied to a non-tag type column (Lee, [0048], a header tag may identify the generated database model snapshot object itself. Further tags/labels may indicate the type and locations of the different metadata components in database model snapshot object, such as tables, views, functions, procedures, and/or other metadata components, and reference data. Each of the different metadata components may be described in association with their tag/label in human readable text and in a standardized manner in generated database model snapshot object so that a person can read the description and understand the corresponding metadata component structure).
Claim 21, Saeki as modified discloses generating the at least one tag includes inserting the automatically generated at least one tag into a cell included in the first row (Saeki, Figure 7).
Claim 22, Saeki as modified discloses the at least one data item stored in the first row includes a name, and the automatically generated at least one tag is associated with the name (Saeki, Figure 3).
Claim 24, Saeki as modified disclose the data repository storing the automatically generated at least one tag is associated with a cloud-based computing environment (Lee, [0038], e.g. network cloud 208 is a cloud-based network that enables a cloud-based database 216 to be provided to user computers as a service. Cloud-based database 216 may be a database application operating in a computer system of network cloud 208 as a running instance of a database model).
Claim 25, Saeki as modified discloses the automatically generated at least one tag is stored in the column-oriented data structure (Saeki, Figure 3).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki, T. (US 20130066849 A1), as applied to claims 16, 32, 34, and 35 above.
Claim 19 Saeki discloses the claimed invention; however, Saeki does not specify the generated at least one tag represents a descriptive quality of data within the column-oriented data structure. It is noted that the limitation of “a descriptive quality of data” is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material that does not have an interrelationship with the structured. Therefore, the “a descriptive quality of data” is not given any patentable weight. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Claim(s) 23, 26, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki, T. (US 20130066849 A1), as applied to claims 16, 32, 34, and 35 above, in view of Pollock et al. (Pollock hereafter, US 20050210371 A1).
Claim 23, Saeki discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the at least one data item stored in the first row includes a status associated with at least one project ([0113], e.g., some embodiments of the invention, the cell descriptors may be modified differently or may not be modified from the initial cell descriptor status. Any cell descriptor information that is used to represent the empty row or column cells should indicate to the table generator 220 that these cells are not to be exported, since they do not contain information that is needed to reproduce the document) and the automatically generated at least one tag is associated with a priority level. Pollock discloses the at least one data item stored in the first row includes a status associated with at least one project, and the automatically generated at least one tag is associated with a priority level ([0082], e.g. exemplary process 1104 proceeds to step 1204 in which the table generator 220 creates one or more table cell tags for each cell descriptor that indicates a non-zero number of columns and a non-zero number of rows. Thus, a corner cell, which has a cell descriptor that indicates the number of columns and number of rows that make up the merged cell, as discussed above, will have a table cell tag generated for it by the table generator 220 in step 1204. In some embodiments of the present invention, the table cell tags created in step 1204 can be formatted in HTML. Step 1204 may include several substeps, which will be discussed further below in connection with FIG. 13).
Pollock discloses an improvement that addresses a need in the art generating electronic documents in a manner that allows exported documents to consistently look the same as the original documents ([0006]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated by Pollock to improve the method of Saeki. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Saeki with the tag system of Pollock. The benefit would be to address a need in the art generating electronic documents in a manner that allows exported documents to consistently look the same as the original documents.
Claim 26, Saeki as modified discloses storing the at least one tag in the column-oriented data structure includes inserting the automatically generated at least one tag into a specific cell of the first row associated with a designated tag type column (Pollock, [0025], e.g. creating one or more table cell tags for each cell descriptor that indicates a non-zero number of columns and a non-zero number of rows).
Claim 27, Saeki as modified discloses the automatically generated at least one tag is stored in association with an index number corresponding to the first row (Pollock, [0067], e.g. the cell descriptors alternatively indicate an index of the object that is contained by the cell, or, in the case of multiple object cell containment, the object which dominates the cell containment (i.e., "owns" or controls the cell)).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki, T. (US 20130066849 A1), as applied to claims 16, 32, 34, and 35 above, in view of Xian et al. (Xian hereafter, US 20190079665 A1).
Claim 28, Saeki discloses the claimed invention except for analyzing the query for identifying at least one keyword associated with the at least one tag. Xian discloses analyzing the query for identifying at least one keyword associated with the at least one tag ([0131], e.g. query keyword corresponding to the query tag is received based on triggering the query tag, and the query keyword is used to generate a query message).
Xian discloses accuracy for determining whether the user desires to invoke a query or otherwise to invoke the system control can be improved based on detection of multiple consecutive sliding inputs ([0083]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated by Xian to improve the method of Saeki. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the tags of Xian with the method of Saeki. The benefit would be to improve accuracy.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki, T. (US 20130066849 A1), as applied to claims 16, 32, 34, and 35 above, in view of Xue et al. (Xue hereafter, US 20130335198 A1).
Claim 30, Saeki discloses the claimed invention except for determining whether the second device has permission to access data associated with the at least one tag. Xue discloses determining whether the second device has permission to access data associated with the at least one tag ([0063], e.g. When a legitimate reader applies to the authentication database for permission to access the tag, the authentication database authorizes and stores the information in a hash table in the reader for storing tag information).
Xue discloses hiding tag position information effectively and offering excellent security (Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated by Xue to improve the method of Saeki. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Saeki with the tag security of Xue. The benefit would be to offer excellent security.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki, T. (US 20130066849 A1), as applied to claims 16, 32, 34, and 35 above, in view of Gould et al. (Gould hereafter, US 20120185449 A1).
Claim 31, Saeki discloses the claimed invention except for extracting the at least one data item includes generating a filtered board displaying only rows related to the at least one tag. Gould discloses extracting the at least one data item includes generating a filtered board displaying only rows related to the at least one tag ([0034], e.g. a filter 402 causes the environment 400A to display only rows in which the source value has a value of "P002," which includes the first row 404).
Gould discloses the techniques described herein can be used to maintain the integrity and accuracy of various databases and files. The techniques described herein may also allow an administrator to efficiently maintain one or more record systems ([0009]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated by Gould to improve the method of Saeki. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Saeki with the techniques of Gould. The benefit would be to efficiently maintain one or more record systems.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki, T. (US 20130066849 A1), as applied to claims 16, 32, 34, and 35 above, in view of Akahoshi et al. (Akahoshi hereafter, US 20150039387 A1).
Claim 33, Saeki discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first row corresponds to a project, and the automatically generated at least one tag including at least one of: a priority level associated with the project, a status associated with the project or a person associated with the project. Akahoshi discloses the first row corresponds to a project, and the automatically generated at least one tag including at least one of: a priority level associated with the project, a status associated with the project or a person associated with the project (Figure 8).
Akahoshi discloses technologies have been proposed for the purpose of smoothly performing such jobs and improving work efficiency ([0005]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated by Akahoshi to improve the method of Saeki. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Saeki with the improvement described by Akahoshi. The benefit would be to improving work efficiency.
CONCLUSION
Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO's Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO's Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent business on the Internet. The USPTO's PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public.
For all other customer support, please call the USPTO Call Center (UCC) at 800-786-9199. The USPTO's official fax number is 571-272-8300.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. Dune Ly, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0716. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi, can be reached on 571-272-4078.
/Cheyne D Ly/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152
6/26/2026
Prosecution Insights