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
This Final Rejection is filed in response to Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment filed 09/16/2025
Claims 1-4, 11-14, and 20 are amended
Claims 1-6, 9-16, and 19-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Argument 1, Applicant argues in Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment filed 09/16/2025, pg. 11-14, that prior art fails to teach the primary Claim limitation, “wherein the file comprises a dynamic interaction library, that comprises a set of interaction details for the dynamic interaction that are supported by the application server and wherein the dynamic interaction library is associated with an organization of a user that is associated with at least the first user input and the second user input;… wherein the dynamic interaction between the source element and the target element indicated via the stored file is associated with the first interaction and the second interaction based at least in part on the first interaction and the second interaction being associated with the set of interaction details of the dynamic interaction library”.
Response to Argument 1, applicant’s arguments have been considered and in light of the amendments a newly found combination of prior art (U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20170147296 “Kumar”, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20200151630 “Shakhnovich”, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20200320158 “Adams”) is applied to updated rejections.
However the examiner notes that Kumar teaches in para. [0057], “As shown in FIG. 3, workflow logic generator 112 receives constructed workflow information 138. Constructed workflow information 138 indicates which workflow steps have been inserted into the workflow, their input parameter values, and their sequencing. Workflow logic generator 112 also receives selected workflow logic 320, which is the workflow logic for each workflow step of the workflow as indicated in constructed workflow information 138. In one example, workflow logic generator 112 retrieves workflow logic from workflow library 118 for each workflow step indicated in constructed workflow information 138, to receive selected workflow logic”. Thus the BRI for the primary claim limitation, “wherein the dynamic interaction between the source element and the target element indicated via the stored file is associated with the first interaction and the second interaction based at least in part on the first interaction and the second interaction being associated with the set of interaction details of the dynamic interaction library”, encompasses how user saved workflow is a dynamic interaction according to user driven order of selections which have associated interaction triggers that is stored within the library of user saved workflows, wherein each of the user saved workflows may be dynamic interactions making the server hosted workflow library a library of dynamic interactions that execute workflows interactions in the triggered order. It is noted that the limitation wording of “associated” is quite broad and would encompass any sort of connected association including a user selected order of operations that results in a specified execution order of a triggered workflow.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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) 1-4, 9-14, & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20170147296 “Kumar”, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20200151630 “Shakhnovich”, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20200320158 “Adams”.
Claim 1:
Kumar teaches a method for data processing, comprising: loading a set of elements in a user interface of an application builder program for configuring interactions between the set of elements in an application (i.e. para. [0090], Fig. 13, “FIG. 13, workflow designer GUI 116 includes a menu 1304 of selectable trigger steps such as “Dropbox—When new file is uploaded,” “Dropbox—When new folder is created,” … A developer may interact with any of these example trigger steps to select it as the initial step in the workflow”, wherein the BRI for an application builder program encompasses how a developer uses the workflow designer GUI as a tool for developing business and consumer applications. The examiner notes that a set of elements represent steps a developer may configure interactions with), wherein a subset of the set of elements support dynamically inputting data for automatically invoking a corresponding action at one or more target elements based at least in part on data packets associated with an action, that are transmitted from one or more source elements (i.e. para. [0093], Fig. 15-18, “after the developer has added the trigger step, the developer can add another step (e.g., an action or condition)”, wherein the examiner notes that a developer may select from a second subset of actions or conditions that comprise metadata transferring interactions for automatically invoking corresponding actions such as, “Outlook- Send email for approval” after “Dropbox- When a new file is uploaded”. Wherein the examiner further notes the subset of elements the transfer of data packets from a source such as an outlook email server), and wherein the set of elements comprise at least one of a component configured for use in the application, a service, an application programming interface, or a combination thereof (i.e. para. [0075], “one or more of the workflow steps may make calls to corresponding applications/services to perform their functions”, wherein the set of steps the developer configured interactions with may be for corresponding applications/services, such as an email application); receiving, via a first user input in the user interface, a selection of a source element from the one or more source elements and an event associated with the source element, wherein the event comprises transmission of a data packet from the source element in response to a trigger at the source element (i.e. para. [0092], Fig. 18, “A developer may interact with any of these example trigger steps to select it as the initial step in the workflow”, wherein it is noted in Fig. 18 that a developer has selected a source element of a Dropbox application for a data transfer event comprising “Dropbox- When a new file is uploaded”. Wherein the examiner notes that the source of an outlook email server is one of many source elements such as Facebook or Dropbox); configuring a payload of the data packet based at least in part on receiving the selection of the source element, the payload of the data packet comprising a schema for the event (i.e. para. [0105], “FIG. 18, workflow designer GUI 116 displays a workflow 1802 that a developer has recently constructed using techniques that were described previously herein”, wherein it is noted that a payload of an email sent for approval is configured based in part on the user selecting the action, “Outlook - Send email for approval” after selecting a source of “Dropbox- when a new file is uploaded”, wherein the payload comprises an email for approval for the event); receiving, via a second user input in the user interface, a selection of a target element from the one or more target elements and an input field for the target element, wherein the input field comprises the corresponding trigger that is to be invoked in response to receiving the event associated with the source element (i.e. para. [0093], Fig. 18, “ the developer can then initiate the addition of a second step to the workflow”, wherein it is noted in Fig. 18 that a developer has selected a second source element of an Outlook application for a data transfer event comprising a trigger step of “Outlook- Send an email for approval”, which sends an email in response to receiving the first event of “Dropbox- When a new file is uploaded”); storing, within an application server (i.e. para. [0039], Server 134 includes a workflow designer 106 and a workflow library 118 (e.g., in storage)), a file for generating a dynamic interaction between the source element and the target element for the application builder program (i.e. para. [0107], “FIG. 19, workflow designer GUI 116 displays a menu of saved workflows that a developer may interact within in order to activate, deactivate, edit, delete or perform other operations with respect to one or more of the saved workflows”, wherein the examiner notes that the BRI for storing a file for generating a dynamic interaction encompasses how the workflow designer GUI saves the dynamic interactions between the user selected source and target element workflow steps. The examiner notes that the BRI for a dynamic interaction may be how the user is dynamically inputting type of Dropbox data at one or more target element workflow steps based on data packets that are transmitted from one or more source elements such as “When a new file is uploaded”. This file may be saved and stored in a workflow library on a server 134 and may be transferred to a user’s GUI for viewing/editing on their computing device 102), wherein the file comprises a dynamic interaction library, that comprises a set of interaction details for the dynamic interaction that are supported by the application server (i.e. para. [0052], “the saved workflows may be stored in workflow library 118 or elsewhere. For example, saved workflow selector 306 may display a list of saved workflow”, wherein the user may generate a save file for their workflow may be saved in a workflow library and selected to recreate or edit the dynamic interactions between user selected source and target elements. Wherein the set of saved interactive workflows are supported as executable),
receiving, during runtime of the application, a selection of the source element and the event (i.e. para. [0047], “During runtime execution of the workflow, workflow logic 120 may invoke operation of one or more local or network-based applications associated with the workflow steps of workflow logic 120. Each workflow step may receive input data”, wherein during a runtime of a Dropbox application, a file folder may be created which invokes the source element of Dropbox and the event “When a new file is created”);
retrieving, in response to receiving the selection of the source element and the event during runtime of the application, metadata associated with the source element and the target element (i.e. para. [0041], “application 122 may be any type of local application or service, such as a database application (e.g., QuickBooks®, a Microsoft® Excel® spreadsheet), an e-mail application (e.g., Microsoft® Outlook®), a productivity application (e.g., Microsoft® Word®, Microsoft® PowerPoint®, etc.), or another type of application”, wherein it is noted that the a transmitting interaction actions “Outlook- Send email for approval” is based in part on retrieving workflow step metadata information to execute the user defined steps following when a new file has been uploaded from, “Dropbox- When a new file is uploaded”), the metadata comprising data types, properties, or both, wherein invoking the trigger comprises transmitting the configured payload of the data packet in accordance with the metadata (i.e. para. [0083], “Workflow step metadata 1104 may include any type of structured or unstructured data concerning a workflow step… metadata may include a name or other identifier of the workflow step, a description of the workflow step, an identifier and/or description of a service that is utilized or referenced by the workflow step (e.g., Dropbox™, Facebook®, Outlook®, or the like)”, wherein the workflow designer GUI may retrieve metadata associated with the selected source and target step, which transmits and email data packet in accordance with the selected metadata. The examiner notes that the BRI for data types encompasses how workflow step metadata may be of a structured or unstructured type. Wherein the BRI for properties encompasses names or other identifying information that may comprise workflow step metadata and
receiving, based at least in part on invoking the trigger, a response(i.e. para. [0090], “ A developer may interact with (point and click with a mouse, touch via a touch screen, etc.) any of these example trigger steps to select it as the initial step in the workflow”, wherein the BRI for receiving a response based in part on the retrieved metadata associated with the source and the target element encompasses how Fig. 18 shows that the workflow GUI has received a response in the form of the user selecting the second target step, “Outlook - Send email for approval”, which was displayed and selected based at least in part on the target step having related metadata to the selected source step of “Dropbox- when a new file is uploaded”) wherein the dynamic interaction between the source element and the target element indicated via the stored file is associated with the first interaction and the second interaction based at least in part on the first interaction and the second interaction being associated with the set of interaction details of the dynamic interaction library (i.e. para. [0057], “As shown in FIG. 3, workflow logic generator 112 receives constructed workflow information 138. Constructed workflow information 138 indicates which workflow steps have been inserted into the workflow, their input parameter values, and their sequencing. Workflow logic generator 112 also receives selected workflow logic 320, which is the workflow logic for each workflow step of the workflow as indicated in constructed workflow information 138. In one example, workflow logic generator 112 retrieves workflow logic from workflow library 118 for each workflow step indicated in constructed workflow information 138, to receive selected workflow logic”, wherein the saved workflow in the library is associated with the user interaction order of the constructed workflow); and transmitting, from the application server to a user device, the interaction associated with the target element based at least in part on retrieving the metadata associated with the source element and the target element during runtime of the application (i.e. para. [0041], “Network-based applications 124A and 124B are accessible by computing device 102 over network 126, may be configured to perform data processing and/or data hosting operations, and may provide data 130A and 130B, respectively, to workflows created using workflow designer 106 when such workflows are executed at runtime”, wherein the BRI for an application server encompasses the server 134 which has a workflow library containing user saved workflows. Such user saved workflows would be transmitted from a workflow logic server over a network to a local application in order to relay the user saved workflow metadata for executing the steps in the user defined order. Such a retrieval would be executing during the runtime of source applications involved in the user saved workflow) and the stored file for generating the dynamic interaction between the source element and the target element (i.e. para. [0121], “executable workflow logic is generated corresponding to at least the first workflow step and the second workflow step, wherein the generating the executable workflow logic comprises defining the value of the input parameter of the second workflow to include a value of a particular output parameter of the first workflow step that corresponds to the particular user-interactive object that was copied into the data entry element”, wherein a file of instructions for a particular the saved workflow stored in the workflow library on the server may be transmitted to another appropriate user application device at runtime. Accordingly running a saved workflow executes the source and target elements in the user selected order).
While Kumar teaches an application server containing a dynamic interaction library of user created workflows, Kumar may not explicitly teach,
wherein the dynamic interaction library is associated with an organization of a user that is associated with at least the first user input and the second user input;
However, Shakhnovich teaches
wherein the dynamic interaction library is associated with an organization of a user that is associated with at least the first user input and the second user input (i.e. para. [0070], “the workflow library can include workflows categorized by industry or department. In some embodiments, the library includes workflows created by other users within the same organization”, wherein a library may be associated with an organization of a user creating the workflow).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the dynamic interaction library is associated with an organization of a user that is associated with at least the first user input and the second user input, to Kumar’s application developer interface that displays second target steps based in part on metadata that relating to a first selected source step, with wherein the dynamic interaction library is associated with an organization of a user that is associated with at least the first user input and the second user input, as taught by Shakhnovich. One would have been motivated to combine Shakhnovich with Kumar, and as the combination creates specialized granularity that may save a user time when trying to find relevant workflows
While Kumar-Shakhnovich teaches receiving a response associated with the target element, the response being based at least in part on the retrieved metadata associated with the source element and the target element, Kumar may not explicitly each wherein the response is
Indicating an interaction associated with the target element and corresponding to an interaction associated with the source element
However Adams teaches
Retrieving, in response to receiving the selection of the source element and the event during runtime of the application, metadata associated with the source element and the target element, the metadata comprising data types, properties, or both, wherein invoking the trigger comprises transmitting the configured payload of the data packet in accordance with the metadata (i.e. para. [0060], “FIG. 4 shows an illustration of an interface 400 for creating rules using conditional logic. The interface 400 includes a rule comprising a conditional statement with variables 410 related by an equality statement 420… A rule may correspond with a display of a particular variant, such as “No Invites” variant 430”, wherein rule data is retrieved that is associated with a variable element and its conditions, wherein invoking the payload results in display data for the selected variable and variant being transmitted according to the rule data. Wherein the BRI for metadata encompasses the underlying code or tag data that record and triggers the user defined conditional statement).
Adams further teaches receiving a response
indicating a first interaction associated with the target element and corresponding to a second interaction associated with the source element (i.e. para. [0072], “FIG. 5D illustrates a plurality of executable expressions 535 within the record list variant 540… When the webpage is loaded in the web browser, the executable expressions 535 may be immediately executed at runtime”, wherein the display of executable expressions each comprise respective user selected variable and variants with their associated rules).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add receiving a response indicating a first interaction associated with the target element and corresponding to a second interaction associated with the source element, to Kumar-Shakhnovich’s application developer interface that displays second target steps based in part on metadata that relating to a first selected source step, with displaying a second associated response indicating an interaction with a first selected source element in conditional workflow, as taught by Adams. One would have been motivated to combine Adams with Kumar-Shakhnovich, and as the combination allows flexibility to create websites with content that dynamically varies in response to different contexts.
.
Claim 2:
Kumar, Shakhnovich, and Adams teach the method of claim 1.
Kumar teaches further comprising: receiving, via the first user input in the user interface, a selection of the second interaction associated with the source element (i.e. para. [0052], “The developer may then proceed with further configuring the contents of the workflow, adding workflow steps, modifying workflow steps, removing workflow steps, or the like.”, wherein it is noted that a developer may select any source element of a Dropbox application for a data transfer event comprising “Dropbox- When a new file is uploaded” for further editing); and receiving, via the second user input in the user interface, a selection of a corresponding interaction associated with the target element (i.e. para. [0092], 0052], “The developer may then proceed with further configuring the contents of the workflow, adding workflow steps, modifying workflow steps, removing workflow steps, or the like”, wherein it is noted that a developer may select a target element for further editing).
Claim 3:
Kumar, Shakhnovich, and Adams teach the method of claim 2.
Kumar further teaches wherein receiving the selection of the first interaction further comprises: receiving, via the second user input in the user interface, the selection of the first interaction from a drop down list of predefined interactions (i.e. para. [0093], Fig. 15, “When the developer selects an action as the next step, the developer is presented with a menu 1504 of selectable trigger and action steps”, wherein it is noted that the first interaction a subsequent execution interaction associated with the target first trigger as the trigger was selected first).
Claim 4:
Kumar, Shakhnovich, and Adams teach the method of claim 1.
Kumar further teaches, wherein receiving the selection of the target element and the input field further comprises: receiving, via the second user input in the user interface, the selection of a third interaction with an external application programming interface for executing a second event corresponding to the event associated with the source element (i.e. para. [0106], Fig. 18, “When new folder is created send email”, wherein the second user selected step of “Outlook- Send email for approval” is a selection of a third interaction with an external application of Outlook that corresponds to an execute action to send email event in associated with the source element of “Dropbox- when a new folder is created”).
Claim 9:
Kumar, Shakhnovich, and Adams teach the method of claim 1.
Kumar further teaches
wherein the source element or the target element or both comprise at least one of the component configured for use in the application, the service, the application programming interface, or a combination thereof (i.e. para. [0058], “each workflow step may be represented in workflow library 118 as API (application programming interface) metadata”, wherein the associated user selected applications are configured accordingly).
Claim 10:
Kumar, Shakhnovich, and Adams teach the method of claim 1.
Kumar further teaches
wherein the source element is independent from the target element during loading the set of elements in the user interface of the application builder program (i.e. para. [0055], Fig. 18, “step selector 306 may enable a developer to select a step that is associated with a local application, such as Microsoft® Outlook®, or a network-based application, such as Facebook®”, wherein the examiner notes that a first selected source of Dropbox is independent from other elements such as Outlook and Facebook).
Claim 11:
Claim 11 is the apparatus claim reciting similar limitation to Claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is the apparatus claim reciting similar limitation to Claim 2 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is the apparatus claim reciting similar limitation to Claim 3 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is the apparatus claim reciting similar limitation to Claim 4 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 is the apparatus claim reciting similar limitation to Claim 9 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is the non-transitory computer-readable medium claim reciting similar limitation to Claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim(s) 5-6 & 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20170147296 “Kumar”, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20200151630 “Shakhnovich”, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20200320158 “Adams”, as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20200126052 “Deliwala”.
Claim 5:
Kumar, Shakhnovich, and Adams teach the method of claim 1.
While Kumar teaches wherein receiving the selection of the target element and the input field further comprises: receiving, via the second user input in the user interface (i.e. para. [0093], Fig. 15, When the developer selects an action as the next step, the developer is presented with a menu 1504 of selectable trigger and action steps).
Kumar-Shakhnovich-Adams may not explicitly teach
receiving, via the second user input in the user interface comprising a first webpage, the selection of a service configured to navigate to a second webpage in response to receiving the selection of the event associated with the source element.
However Deliwala teaches receiving, via the second user input in the user interface comprising a first webpage (i.e. para. [0058], “, an integrator service 256 could provide a web page, portal, or application that allows a user to authenticate with an issuer payment service 216 or a peer payment service 239”, wherein Figs. 1A-D could be an application or a web page portal), the selection of a service configured to navigate to a second webpage in response to receiving the selection of the event associated with the source element (i.e. para. [0058], “After authentication occurs, the integrator service 256 could retrieve information from a credit user account 226 or a peer user account 246”, wherein the selection of a service is equivalent to a user selecting to authenticate their payment account and viewing a list of cards such as in Fig. 1A).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add receiving, via the second user input in the user interface comprising a first webpage, the selection of a service configured to navigate to a second webpage in response to receiving the selection of the event associated with the source element, to Kumar-Shakhnovich-Adams’ application developer interface, with receiving, via the second user input in the user interface comprising a first webpage, the selection of a service configured to navigate to a second webpage in response to receiving the selection of the event associated with the source element, as taught by Deliwala. One would have been motivated to combine Deliwala with Kumar-Shakhnovich-Adams, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, in order provide a user with more flexibility when creating applications by increasing the types of sources and services a user may select and configure.
Claim 6:
Kumar, Shakhnovich, and Adams teach the method of claim 1.
While Kumar teaches wherein receiving the selection of the target element and the input field further comprises: receiving, via the second user input in the user interface (i.e. para. [0093], Fig. 15, When the developer selects an action as the next step, the developer is presented with a menu 1504 of selectable trigger and action steps).
Kumar-Shakhnovich-Adams may not explicitly teach
receiving, via the second user input in the user interface comprising a webpage, the selection of a service configured to navigate from a first tab to a second tab in the webpage in response to receiving the selection of the event associated with the source element.
However Deliwala teaches receiving, via the second user input in the user interface comprising a webpage (i.e. para. [0058], “an integrator service 256 could provide a web page, portal, or application that allows a user to authenticate with an issuer payment service 216 or a peer payment service 239”, wherein Figs. 1A-D could be an application or a web page portal), the selection of a service configured to navigate from a first tab to a second tab in the webpage in response to receiving the selection of the event associated with the source element (i.e. para. [0058], “The integrator service 256 can be executed to integrate or otherwise connect credit or monetary accounts maintained by an issuer or peer financial institution with an application…After authentication occurs, the integrator service 256 could retrieve information from a credit user account 226”, wherein a first tab is equivalent to an authentication web page and a second tab is equivalent to a web page displaying information from a user’s account after authentication, wherein the selection of a payment event is associated with a list of source cards for payment to a recipient).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add receiving, via the second user input in the user interface comprising a webpage, the selection of a service configured to navigate from a first tab to a second tab in the webpage in response to receiving the selection of the event associated with the source element, to Kumar-Shakhnovich-Adams’ application developer interface, with receiving, via the second user input in the user interface comprising a webpage, the selection of a service configured to navigate from a first tab to a second tab in the webpage in response to receiving the selection of the event associated with the source element, as taught by Deliwala. One would have been motivated to combine Deliwala with Kumar-Shakhnovich-Adams, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, in order provide a user with more flexibility when creating applications by increasing the types of sources and services a user may select and configure.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 is the apparatus claim reciting similar limitation to Claim 5 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 is the apparatus claim reciting similar limitation to Claim 6 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20140237455 “Koneru”, para. [0080], Fig. 9B, at step 1005, the tester selects the test case they want to run on the device. Step 1005 may include, for example, loading a stored test case from a test repository (e.g., storage system 22B) into the test workbench.
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 DAVID H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7433. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Cesar Paula can be reached at (571) 272-4128. 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.
/D.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2145
/CHAU T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2145
Prosecution Insights