DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 6, 2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 23 and 25 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23 recites “wherein detecting a pattern comprises…” which should be corrected to “wherein detecting an input pattern comprises…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 recites “wherein the devices are […] used by users of different level of expertise,” which should be corrected to “used by users of different levels of expertise.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim recites “the complex problem” and “the problem,” which lack antecedent basis. Claim 14, on which Claim 20 depends, recites “An urban design multi-user complex problems resolution system.” However, this statement in the preamble of the claim does not limit the structure of the claimed invention. Furthermore, Claim 14 refers to plural complex problems, whereas Claim 20 attempts to reference a single problem that is not defined in the claim or Claim 14. Therefore, Claim 20 is indefinite.
Claim 20 further recites “the distance,” which lacks antecedent basis. Neither Claim 20 nor Claim 14, on which this claim depends, recites a distance. Therefore, the limitation “suggesting an alterative solution to the problem which minimizes the distance” is indefinite.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim recites “wherein the metadata comprise at least one of: the grammar.” The limitation “the grammar” lacks antecedent basis. Furthermore, Claims 20 and 14, on which this claim depends, do not recite or define grammar. Therefore, Claim 22 is indefinite.
Claim 22 further recites “the grammar used by the users such as the utterance or segmentation of speech.” The phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 14-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes and/or mathematical concepts without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of independent Claim 14 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 14-24 are directed to a machine.
Step 2A Prong I, judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 14 recites the limitations:
14. An urban design multi-user complex problems resolution system, said system comprising:
a plurality of interconnected user devices, each of the user devices embedding a model data structure comprising a representation of a physical system, the physical system being common for all user devices, and each of the user devices being configured to receive input from one or more users in the form of data and metadata modifying variables corresponding to physical properties of the physical system; and
at least one module connected to the devices, the module being provided with a memory and a processor to carry out the following steps:
receiving data and metadata modifying variables, from all the devices;
detecting an input pattern based on the data and metadata received from all the devices;
dynamically generating a customized data structure based on the input pattern; and
updating the model data structure of the devices with the customized data structure.
The limitations detecting an input pattern and dynamically generating a customized data structure are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes (i.e., mental observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions) and/or mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, or equations, or mathematical calculations). A user can perform the mental observation of detecting an input pattern. A user may use pen and paper to record the input pattern. Generating a customized data structure and updating the model data structure are interpreted as mathematical concepts. Paragraph [0020] of the instant specification describes a model data structure as comprising mathematical models; given their broadest reasonable interpretation, generating a customized data structure and updating a model data structure describes performing mathematical calculations.
Step 2A Prong II, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 14 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present general fields of use, mere instructions to apply an exception, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity:
An urban design multi-user complex problems resolution system (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
each of the user devices embedding a model data structure comprising a representation of a physical system (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
the physical system being common for all user devices (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
each of the user devices being configured to receive input from one or more users in the form of data and metadata modifying variables corresponding to physical properties of the physical system (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
receiving data and metadata modifying variables, from all the devices (insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS:
Claim 14 recites the following additional elements:
“A plurality of interconnected user devices” and “at least one module connected to the devices, the module being provided with a memory and a processor” are high level recitations of generic computer components, computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of Claim 14 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements “a plurality of interconnected user devices” and “at least one module connected to the devices, the module being provided with a memory and a processor” reciting generic computer components as mere instructions to apply on a computer per MPEP § 2106.05(f) are carried over and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner also notes that the specification does not define the structures of the additional elements in any way that could be used to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, or general field of use above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP § 2106.05(f), MPEP § 2106.05(g), and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The insignificant extra solution activity of receiving data and metadata modifying variables, from all the devices is considered to be further well understood, routine and conventional, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.”
Considering the claim limitations in combination and the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion, and Claim 14 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim recites The system according to Claim 14, wherein: detecting an input pattern comprises detecting modifications of common variables by a sub-group of users; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental observation of detecting a modification.
and dynamically generating the customized data structure comprises: segregating the variables of the model data structure into sub-groups of variables; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of segregating variables. A user may use pen and paper to record the groups.
and generating a respective set of rules for each sub-group of variables or selecting a respective set of rules for each sub-group of variables among pre-set rules; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental judgement of generating or selecting rules. A user may use pen and paper to associate the rules with the groups.
wherein the module is further configured to allow the sub-group of users to modify the variables of a sub-group of variables only according to the respective rules; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 15 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim recites The system according to Claim 15, wherein the users or sub-groups of users are identified; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental observation of identifying users.
and the set of rules comprises user-specific or sub-group specific permissions to modify variables both in terms of which variables can be modified and in which way they can be modified; this limitation is considered to clarify previous mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of generating or selecting rules defining modification permissions. A user may use pen and paper to record the rules.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 16 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim recites The system according to Claim 15, wherein the sets of rules comprise the enforcement of a restriction comprising a format or a range of values for a given variable of the variables, or a restriction of a position of a tangible input device; this limitation is considered to clarify previous mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of generating or selecting rules defining a range of values. A user may use pen and paper to record the rules.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 17 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim recites The system according to Claim 14, wherein: detecting an input pattern comprises detecting sequential modifications of common variables by successive sub- groups of users; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental observation of detecting sequential modifications.
and generating the customized data structure comprises: segregating the variables of the model data structure into successive sub-groups of variables; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of segregating variables. A user may use pen and paper to record the groups.
wherein the module is further configured to allow the successive sub-groups of users to modify the variables of a sub-group of variables in a sequential manner; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
and wherein detecting an input pattern comprises: detecting transitions between two sequential modifications of common variables by successive sub-groups of users; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental observation of detecting sequential modifications.
and generating the customized data structure comprises: generating sub-groups of overlapping variables made of at least part of the variables of a sub-group of variables before the transition and at least part of the variables of a sub-group of variables after the transition; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes and/or mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of creating a group of variables. A user may use pen and paper to record the groups.
and wherein the module is further configured to allow the sub-groups of users to modify the variables of the sub- groups of overlapping variables; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 18 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites The system according to Claim 14, wherein: detecting an input pattern comprises detecting a plurality of different discrete values as input data for a given variable from one or more users, and/or detecting the frequency of modification of a given variable; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental observation of detecting a frequency of modification. A user may use pen and paper to record instances of modification.
and generating the customized data structure comprises providing a feedforward to the users suggesting a range of values based on the discrete values and/or based on an estimated level of hesitation of the users; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics.”
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 19 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim recites The system according to Claim 14, wherein detecting an input pattern comprises detecting interactions between users; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental observation of detecting interactions between users.
and determining sub-groups of interacting users; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental observation of determining groups of interacting users. A user may use pen and paper to record the groups of interacting users.
and generating the customized data structure comprises providing a feedforward to the users, the feedforward comprising at least one of: suggesting to split the complex-problem into sub-problems; suggesting to call specific solvers; suggesting a given user to consider working or not working on a particular variable, based on the metadata input by this given user; suggesting particular users not working on particular variables to do so, and vice versa, based on an evaluated potential improvement of the formation of sub- groups; suggesting given users to communicate directly together about particular variables; and suggesting an alternative solution to the problem which minimizes the distance between the solutions given by various users; The Examiner notes the use of at least one of, and suggesting given users to communicate directly together is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of generating a suggestion that users work together.
wherein the feedforward is based on at least one of: preselected strategies; the metadata input by the users; the detection of interactions and/or the composition of sub-groups; and available analyzing resources; this limitation is considered to clarify mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of generating a suggestion based on a preselected strategy.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 20 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites The system according to Claim 14, wherein the user devices are at least one of: a smartphone; a computer; a display; a tangible table; this limitation recites the further additional elements “smartphone,” “computer,” and “display,” which are high level recitations of generic computer components and/or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP §2106.05(f). The additional limitation “tangible table” is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
and wherein the user devices comprise at least one of: a natural language feature; a voice or speech recognition feature; a gesture recognition feature; a feeling or an emotion recognition feature; facial recognition features or biomedical signal processing features; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 21 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim recites The system according to Claim 20, wherein the metadata comprise at least one of: the grammar used by the users such as the utterance or segmentation of speech or gesture; the number of users interacting at once with a given user device or with each other; the lexicon; syntax or semantics; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 22 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 23, the claim recites The system according to Claim 22, wherein detecting a pattern comprises detecting grammar used by one or more users; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental observation of detecting another user’s grammar.
and generating the customized data structure comprises suggesting to one user to alter their grammar; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of correcting another user’s grammar.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 23 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 24, the claim recites The system according to Claim 14, wherein the system is adapted to perform multiple iterations for solving a single complex problem or for solving multiple successive complex problems; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
and the system comprises a record of the multiple customized data structures generated at each iteration; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.”
wherein the detected pattern in one iteration is compared with detected patterns of previous iterations; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of comparing patterns of different iterations. A user may use pen and paper to perform the comparison.
and the record is used to generate a customized data structure based at least partly on the data structure which had been generated for a similar pattern in a previous iteration; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes and/or mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of generating a customized data structure based on the record and a similar pattern. A user may use pen and paper to record the customized data structure.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 24 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 25, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 14, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons. The additional element “computer-implemented” recites mere instructions to apply the exceptions on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional limitation “wherein the devices are located in different rooms or are used by users of different level of expertise” recites a general field of use and/or technological environment as in MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, the additional elements and limitations of Claim 25 do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a judicial exception under step 2A prong II or provide significantly more under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 26, the claim recites The method according to Claim 25, wherein the module is configured to represent a given user with an avatar on the user devices, the avatar mirroring the gesture, gaze and facial expression of the given user; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 26 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 14-21, 24, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sitrick et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0283456 A1), hereinafter Sitrick, in view of Bertilsson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0077810 A1), hereinafter Bertilsson.
Regarding Claim 1, Sitrick teaches An urban design multi-user complex problems resolution system (“The present invention relates generally to the use of computer systems and applications as a tool in working with documents, and more particularly to a family of systems, methods and apparatus for facilitating and managing a complete and thorough manner to concurrently view and collaborate on a document ( or documents), and provide navigation, editing of images and providing user interfaces, and providing data storage and management infrastructures and mechanisms, such that the present invention provides for multiple user real-time collaboration.”) (e.g., paragraph [0003]).
and at least one module connected to the devices, the module being provided with a memory and a processor (“FIG. 1 illustrates a first embodiment comprising a system with Global Layer Storage with mapping. In a preferred embodiment of this system, it is comprised of Network Layer Storage, 1500, with mapping in a global location [...] The Network Layer Storage, 1500, is described in further detail in FIG. 15.” Figure 15 discloses the network layer storage as comprising logic elements 3900, 1200, and 1520, interpreted as a processor, and layer storage 1600, interpreted as memory.) (e.g., figure 15 and paragraph [0292]).
to carry out the following steps: receiving data and metadata modifying variables, from all the devices (“Signal 3905 is coupled to the network interface, 1510, which receives the layer data combination parameters from the appliance data network, 1501, from a plurality of Control Processors 2550.” The control processors 2550 are the user devices, and the layers are interpreted as variables.) (e.g., paragraph [0308]).
detecting an input pattern based on the data and metadata received from all the devices (“Each student appliance has a unique Data Layer that they view and edit. Each student sees the Teacher Data Layer and their own Data Layer. Thus, Sarah, 5820, views the Sarah Data Layer and the Teacher Data Layer. Jim, 5830, views the Jim Data Layer and the Teacher Data Layer. And Bill, 5820, views the Bill Data Layer and the Teacher Data Layer. Each student is doing the assignment as well. Student Sarah, 5820, wrote "7", 5821, as her answer in the Sarah Data Layer. Student Jim, 5830, wrote "9", 5831, as his answer in the Jim Data Layer. Student Bill, 5830, wrote "8", 5841, as his answer in the Bill Data Layer.” A student writing a number, wherein the writing is then stored in a data layer, is interpreted as detecting an input pattern, wherein the input pattern is the student’s writing.) (e.g., paragraph [0361]).
dynamically generating a customized data structure based on the input pattern (“FIG. 59 illustrates an education team, 5901, with a teacher, 5910, interacting with a student, 5920, one-on-one. Illustrated is Sarah which is viewing the Sarah Data Layer and Teacher Data Layer. The teacher is viewing the Teacher Data Layer and a specific student's Data Layer, in this example the same as Sarah, 5920. Both the student and teacher edit the Sarah Data Layer. This allows the teacher and the student to make annotations in the specific student's Data Layer which are visible by both, but not the entire classroom.” The student’s data layer is interpreted as a customized data structure.) (e.g., paragraph [0362]).
and updating the model data structure of the devices with the customized data structure (“The embodiment illustrated in this FIG. 7 and the embodiments illustrated in FIGS. 9 and 10 provide for synchronization that allows for the same updated data for a respective particular layer to be stored in memory devices at multiple locations in each one of the Network Layer Storage devices, and allows the display computing appliances to access that respective layer from any one of the Network Layer Storage devices.”) (e.g., paragraph [0299]).
However, Sitrick does not appear to specifically teach said system comprising: a plurality of interconnected user devices, each of the user devices embedding a model data structure comprising a representation of a physical system, the physical system being common for all user devices, and each of the user devices being configured to receive input from one or more users in the form of data and metadata modifying variables corresponding to physical properties of the physical system.
On the other hand, Bertilsson, which relates to managing a CAD interface for physical systems, does teach said system comprising: a plurality of interconnected user devices, each of the user devices embedding a model data structure comprising a representation of a physical system (“FIG. 1A illustrates a computer system 110 that includes a data storage system 112 connected to host systems 114a-114n through communication medium 118 [...] Referring now to FIG. 2, an exemplary aspect of a modeling system 219 is illustrated that may reside, for example, on a single computer or in one of a plurality of host computer systems (such as host computers 114a-114n illustrated in FIG. 1A).” Host computers 114a-114n are a plurality of interconnected user devices, wherein the modeling system 219 comprises a model data structure representing a physical system.) (e.g., paragraphs [0059] and [0073]).
the physical system being common for all user devices (“In some aspects, a multiphysics model data structure includes modeling components, such as but not limited to, modeling operations and commands for one or more physical systems [...] The application model data structure is an instantiation of an application data structure where the application interface may be accessible from various graphical user interfaces.” The application interface, which interacts with a model of a physical system, being accessible from various user interfaces) (e.g., paragraph [0042]).
and each of the user devices being configured to receive input from one or more users in the form of data and metadata modifying variables corresponding to physical properties of the physical system (“For example, the communication medium 118 may be the Internet, an intranet, or other network connection by which the host systems 114a-114n may access and communicate with the data storage system 112, and may also communicate with others included in the computer system 110, including without limitation systems based on various forms of network communications ( e.g., fiber optic, wireless, Ethernet).”) (e.g., paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Sitrick with Bertilsson. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Sitrick teaches a system for managing collaboration between users and generating a customized data structure based on user input. However, Sitrick does not appear to teach wherein the data structure represents a physical system common to all users. On the other hand, Bertilsson, which relates to managing a CAD interface for physical systems, does teach a plurality of user devices storing a data structure representing a shared physical system. As both Sitrick and Bertilsson relate to managing data across network connected devices (e.g., Sitrick, figure 1; Bertilsson; figure 1A), one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods; in combination, the collaboration management of Sitrick and the physical system modeling of Bertilsson merely perform the same functions as they do separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Sitrick with Bertilsson to create a collaborative environment for physical system modeling.
Regarding Claim 15, Sitrick in view of Bertilsson teaches The system according to Claim 14. Sitrick further teaches wherein: detecting an input pattern comprises detecting modifications of common variables by a sub-group of users (“FIG. 59 illustrates an education team, 5901, with a teacher, 5910, interacting with a student, 5920, one-on-one [...] In this illustration, the teacher wrote "Incorrect", 5912, which is also viewed on the Sarah display 5920. The student responded with a "?", 6022, which the teacher views on their display, 5910.” A student or teacher writing on a layer is interpreted as modifying common variables, wherein the teach and student interacting one-on-one is a sub-group of users.) (e.g., paragraph [0362]).
and dynamically generating the customized data structure comprises: segregating the variables of the model data structure into sub-groups of variables (Figure 13 discloses the model document defined as multiple layers in the mapping table 1330, wherein the layers are interpreted as sub-groups of variables.) (e.g., figure 13).
and generating a respective set of rules for each sub-group of variables or selecting a respective set of rules for each sub-group of variables among pre-set rules (“[T]here is an additional element in FIG. 14 that is not in FIG.13, which additional element provides logic to define for each user a definition of the edit permission level, which provides definition and permissions as to whether or not editing is permitted for a respective particular user, and as to which level that particular user should be editing.” The edit permission levels are interpreted as a selected set of rules.) (e.g., paragraph [0232]).
wherein the module is further configured to allow the sub-group of users to modify the variables of a sub-group of variables only according to the respective rules (“[T]here is an additional element in FIG. 14 that is not in FIG.13, which additional element provides logic to define for each user a definition of the edit permission level, which provides definition and permissions as to whether or not editing is permitted for a respective particular user, and as to which level that particular user should be editing.”) (e.g., paragraph [0232]).
Regarding Claim 16, Sitrick in view of Bertilsson teaches The system according to Claim 15. Sitrick further teaches wherein the users or sub-groups of users are identified (“In a preferred embodiment, each user's markings are uniquely identifiable ( e.g., by an assigned respective color to identify the respective users' markings) within a combined display presentation provided to all the users within the group/team.”) (e.g., paragraph [0100]).
and the set of rules comprises user-specific or sub-group specific permissions to modify variables both in terms of which variables can be modified and in which way they can be modified (“[T]here is an additional element in FIG. 14 that is not in FIG.13, which additional element provides logic to define for each user a definition of the edit permission level, which provides definition and permissions as to whether or not editing is permitted for a respective particular user, and as to which level that particular user should be editing.”) (e.g., paragraph [0232]).
Regarding Claim 17, Sitrick in view of Bertilsson teaches The system according to Claim 15. Bertilsson further teaches wherein the sets of rules comprise the enforcement of a restriction comprising a format or a range of values for a given variable of the variables, or a restriction of a position of a tangible input device (“Modeling operations can also include setting and/or displaying (a) domain physics settings and physics properties, (b) boundary conditions, (c) constraints, ( d) loads, ( e) setting initial values, and/or (f) setting initial conditions for modeling the physical system(s).” Constraints are interpreted as a range of values for a given variable.) (e.g., paragraph [0086]).
Regarding Claim 18, Sitrick in view of Bertilsson teaches The system according to Claim 14. Sitrick further teaches wherein: detecting an input pattern comprises detecting sequential modifications of common variables by successive sub- groups of users (“FIG. 59 illustrates an education team, 5901, with a teacher, 5910, interacting with a student, 5920, one-on-one. Illustrated is Sarah which is viewing the Sarah Data Layer and Teacher Data Layer. The teacher is viewing the Teacher Data Layer and a specific student's Data Layer, in this example the same as Sarah, 5920. Both the student and teacher edit the Sarah Data Layer. This allows the teacher and the student to make annotations in the specific student's Data Layer which are visible by both, but not the entire classroom.” The Sarah data layer is a common variable which is edited sequentially by the teacher and Sarah, wherein the teacher and Sarah are a sub-group of users.) (e.g., paragraph [0362]).
and generating the customized data structure comprises: segregating the variables of the model data structure into successive sub- groups of variables (Figure 13 discloses mapping tables for a plurality of users, wherein the data layers are segregated by the mappings into multiple sub-groups of variables.) (e.g., figure 13).
wherein the module is further configured to allow the successive sub-groups of users to modify the variables of a sub-group of variables in a sequential manner (“FIG. 62 illustrates a social team where the user, Frankie 6203, is viewing messages, 6111, 6114, 6120, 6125 and 6128 between himself and his manager, John 6204, on display 6201.” The message log illustrated in figure 62 is interpreted as comprising layers, wherein sending messages is interpreted as modifying variables of the layers in a sequential manner.) (e.g., figure 62, paragraph [0365]).
and wherein detecting an input pattern comprises: detecting transitions between two sequential modifications of common variables by successive sub-groups of users (“FIG. 59 illustrates an education team, 5901, with a teacher, 5910, interacting with a student, 5920, one-on-one. Illustrated is Sarah which is viewing the Sarah Data Layer and Teacher Data Layer. The teacher is viewing the Teacher Data Layer and a specific student's Data Layer, in this example the same as Sarah, 5920. Both the student and teacher edit the Sarah Data Layer. This allows the teacher and the student to make annotations in the specific student's Data Layer which are visible by both, but not the entire classroom.” The teacher and Sarah are interpreted as sequentially modifying the Sarah data layer.) (e.g., paragraph [0362]).
and generating the customized data structure comprises: generating sub-groups of overlapping variables made of at least part of the variables of a sub-group of variables before the transition and at least part of the variables of a sub-group of variables after the transition (“The display logic combines the layer data for each level and outputs the display presentation on 3904 [...] Illustrated is Sarah which is viewing the Sarah Data Layer and Teacher Data Layer. The teacher is viewing the Teacher Data Layer and a specific student's Data Layer, in this example the same as Sarah, 5920. Both the student and teacher edit the Sarah Data Layer. This allows the teacher and the student to make annotations in the specific student's Data Layer which are visible by both, but not the entire classroom.” The edited Sarah Data layer is interpreted as comprising the overlapping variables defining the teacher’s input and the student’s input.) (e.g., paragraphs [0324] and [0362]).
and wherein the module is further configured to allow the sub-groups of users to modify the variables of the sub- groups of overlapping variables (“[T]here is an additional element in FIG. 14 that is not in FIG.13, which additional element provides logic to define for each user a definition of the edit permission level, which provides definition and permissions as to whether or not editing is permitted for a respective particular user, and as to which level that particular user should be editing.”) (e.g., paragraph [0232]).
Regarding Claim 19, Sitrick in view of Bertilsson teaches The system according to Claim 14. Bertilsson further teaches wherein: detecting an input pattern comprises detecting a plurality of different discrete values as input data for a given variable from one or more users, and/or detecting the frequency of modification of a given variable (“Modeling operations can also include setting and/or displaying (a) domain physics settings and physics properties, (b) boundary conditions, (c) constraints, ( d) loads, ( e) setting initial values, and/or (f) setting initial conditions for modeling the physical system(s) [...] The at least one form feature or the at least one form collection feature comprises one or more fields for specifying input data and/or output data and/or presentation format of input and/or output data.” The form may be used to detect input boundary conditions, constraints, loads, etc., which are interpreted as different discrete values.) (e.g., paragraph [0096]).
and generating the customized data structure comprises providing a feedforward to the users suggesting a range of values based on the discrete values and/or based on an estimated level of hesitation of the users (“Modeling operations can also include setting and/or displaying (a) domain physics settings and physics properties, (b) boundary conditions, (c) constraints, ( d) loads, ( e) setting initial values, and/or (f) setting initial conditions for modeling the physical system(s).” A modeling operation displaying constraints is interpreted as a feedforward suggesting a range of values.) (e.g., paragraph [0096]).
Regarding Claim 20, Sitrick in view of Bertilsson teaches The system according to Claim 14. Sitrick further teaches wherein detecting an input pattern comprises detecting interactions between users (“FIG. 64 illustrates a social team where the user, Frankie 6403, is viewing threads of messages that he has participated in. Frankie can see the message threads that he has participated in.” The messages between users are interactions between users.) (e.g., paragraph [0368]).
and determining sub-groups of interacting users (“All Data Layers are shown but only messages in all layers that are directly referenced by a Frankie Data Layer or Franks Data Layer message are shown. One thread of messages is shown because of Frankie's messages 6114 and 6125 in the Frankie Data Layer referenced to John.” The threads are interpreted as sub-groups of interacting users.) (e.g., paragraph [0368]).
Bertilsson further teaches and generating the customized data structure comprises providing a feedforward to the users (“The application builder wizard is a system that creates or modifies an initial application data structure that is stored in one or more memory devices associated with a multiphysics modeling system. The generated application data structure, when executed on physical processing unit(s) of a multiphysics modeling system, provides a customized modeling of physical system(s).” The customized modeling is interpreted as a feedforward.) (e.g., paragraph [0085]).
the feedforward comprising at least one of: suggesting to split the complex-problem into sub-problems; suggesting to call specific solvers; suggesting a given user to consider working or not working on a particular variable, based on the metadata input by this given user; suggesting particular users not working on particular variables to do so, and vice versa, based on an evaluated potential improvement of the formation of sub- groups; suggesting given users to communicate directly together about particular variables; and suggesting an alternative solution to the problem which minimizes the distance between the solutions given by various users; (The Examiner notes the use of at least one of, and the prior art provides a suggestion to call specific solvers. “The logics component 64 can determine which modeling and simulation software components should be used to process input data and execute input commands, and which components should be used to generate output data and output commands, based on the user input. The input data and input commands may be relayed by the logics component( s) 64, upon execution, to one or more of rendering, geometry, physics, meshing, assembling, solver, and results components.” Determining which modeling and simulation software component to use is interpreted as suggesting a solver.) (e.g., paragraph [0068]).
wherein the feedforward is based on at least one of: preselected strategies; the metadata input by the users; the detection of interactions and/or the composition of sub-groups; and available analysing resources (“The logics component 64 can determine which modeling and simulation software components should be used to process input data and execute input commands, and which components should be used to generate output data and output commands, based on the user input,” wherein the user input is interpreted as metadata input by users.) (e.g., paragraph [0068]).
Regarding Claim 21, Sitrick in view of Bertilsson teaches The system according to Claim 14. Sitrick further teaches wherein the user devices are at least one of: a smartphone; a computer; a display; a tangible table (“Each user has their own said respective computing appliance (e.g., laptop PC, tablet PC, desktop PC, tough-screen PC systems, etc.).”) (e.g., paragraph [0196]).
and wherein the user devices comprise at least one of: a natural language feature; a voice or speech recognition feature; a gesture recognition feature; a feeling or an emotion recognition feature; facial recognition features or biomedical signal processing features (“Then, any user can mark annotations via their user input and using their local touchscreen display relative to a base display image.” A touchscreen for marking and annotation is interpreted as a gesture recognition feature.”) (e.g., paragraph [0106]).
Regarding Claim 24, Sitrick in view of Bertilsson teaches The system according to Claim 14. Bertilsson further teaches wherein the system is adapted to perform multiple iterations for solving a single complex problem or for solving multiple successive complex problems (“This collaboration continues iterating, continuing to generate a respective updated version of a collaborative display output and continuing until the result evolves into a final consensus of what the document should be.”) (e.g., paragraph [0054]).
and the system comprises a record of the multiple customized data structures generated at each iteration (“With the present invention, all that individual input collaboratively can be integrated and work together to result in a complete record of the activity. Each user's annotations are stored in an associatively mapped one data layer. All input of annotations (edits) by a user persists in the storage of the respective annotation data in the respective one data layer.”) (e.g., paragraph [0070]).
wherein the detected pattern in one iteration is compared with detected patterns of previous iterations (“In addition, each change is recorded so each party's input can be compared, reviewed and approved.”) (e.g., paragraph [0124]).
and the record is used to generate a customized data structure based at least partly on the data structure which had been generated for a similar pattern in a previous iteration (“All input of annotations (edits) by a user persists in the storage of the respective annotation data in the respective one data layer. The result of the combining the layers is the completed all-in-one document.”) (e.g., paragraph [0070]).
Regarding Claim 25, Sitrick teaches A computer-implemented method for solving an urban design multi-user complex problem, the method using an urban design multi-user complex problem resolution system (“The present invention relates generally to the use of computer systems and applications as a tool in working with documents, and more particularly to a family of systems, methods and apparatus for facilitating and managing a complete and thorough manner to concurrently view and collaborate on a document ( or documents), and provide navigation, editing of images and providing user interfaces, and providing data storage and management infrastructures and mechanisms, such that the present invention provides for multiple user real-time collaboration.”) (e.g., paragraph [0003]).
Bertilsson further teaches wherein the devices are located in different rooms or are used by users of different level of expertise (“Each of the host computers 114a-114n, as well as the data storage system 112, may all be located at the same physical site, or, alternatively, may also be located in different physical locations.”) (e.g., paragraph [0061]).
The remaining limitations of Claim 25 are substantially similar to Claim 14, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Sitrick and Bertilsson for the same reasons as in Claim 14.
Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sitrick in view of Bertilsson, further in view of Birnbaum et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0127325 A1), hereinafter Birnbaum.
Regarding Claim 22, Sitrick in view of Bertilsson teaches The system according to Claim 20. However, neither Sitrick nor Bertilsson appears to specifically teach wherein the metadata comprise at least one of: the grammar used by the users such as the utterance or segmentation of speech or gesture; the number of users interacting at once with a given user device or with each other; the lexicon; syntax or semantics.
On the other hand, Birnbaum, which relates to natural language composition correction, does teach wherein the metadata comprise at least one of: the grammar used by the users such as the utterance or segmentation of speech or gesture; the number of users interacting at once with a given user device or with each other; the lexicon; syntax or semantics (The Examiner notes the use of at least one of, and the prior art provides grammar used by the users. “The grammar correction system can identify information of a writer of the writing (step 410). In some implementations, the grammar correction system can identify a writer of the writing. The grammar correction system can then receive, retrieve or collect information of the writer.”) (e.g., paragraph [0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Sitrick in view of Bertilsson in view of Birnbaum. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Sitrick teaches a system for managing collaboration between users and generating a customized data structure based on user input. However, Sitrick does not appear to specifically teach wherein the metadata comprises grammar used by users. On the other hand, Birnbaum, which relates to natural language composition correction, does teach metadata comprising user grammar. As Sitrick discloses a messaging feature (e.g., Sitrick, figure 61), and Birnbaum discloses a method for correcting grammar (e.g., Birnbaum, paragraph [0004]), one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the messaging of Sitrick and the grammatical correction of Birnbaum as claimed by known methods; in combination, the grammatical correction of Birnbaum and the messaging of Sitrick merely perform the same functions as they do separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the collaboration environment of Sitrick with the grammar correction of Birnbaum to provide automatic grammar checking for messages.
Regarding Claim 23, Sitrick in view of Bertilsson and Birnbaum teaches The system according to Claim 22. Birnbaum further teaches wherein detecting a pattern comprises detecting grammar used by one or more users (“The grammar correction system can identify information of a writer of the writing (step 410). In some implementations, the grammar correction system can identify a writer of the writing.”) (e.g., paragraph [0115]).
and generating the customized data structure comprises suggesting to one user to alter their grammar (“In some implementations, the grammar correction system 210 can be configured to inspect the words in a writing for spelling mistakes prior to the tag module 224 tagging words. In this way, any words that are misspelt can be corrected prior to being tagged.”) (e.g., paragraph [0100]).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sitrick in view of Bertilsson, further in view of Huang et al. (Huang, Dongjin, Yuanqiu Yao, Wen Tang, and Youdong Ding. "Facial tracking and animation for digital social system." In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGGRAPH International Conference on Virtual-Reality Continuum and its Applications in Industry, pp. 1-8. 2018.), hereinafter Huang.
Regarding Claim 26, Sitrick in view of Bertilsson teaches The method according to Claim 25. However, neither Sitrick nor Bertilsson appears to teach wherein the module is configured to represent a given user with an avatar on the user devices, the avatar mirroring the gesture, gaze and facial expression of the given user.
On the other hand, Huang, which relates to facial tracking for digital avatars, does teach wherein the module is configured to represent a given user with an avatar on the user devices (“Fig.6 shows a face to face video chat in a virtual social system, in which the user's facial expression captured by webcam can be reacted in real time on avatar.”) (e.g., page 7, column 1, paragraph 2).
the avatar mirroring the gesture, gaze and facial expression of the given user (“The rotation and displacement of the user's head can control the transformation of the visual field in the virtual scene. And the application of expression coefficients on other client Avatar can be realized by a multi scale adaptive expression coding technology.”) (e.g., page 7, column 1, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Sitrick in view of Bertilsson with Huang. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Sitrick teaches a system for managing collaboration between users and generating a customized data structure based on user input. However, Sitrick does not appear to specifically teach representing a user with an avatar that mirrors the gestures of a user. On the other hand, Huang, which relates to facial recognition for digital avatars, does teach a method for representing a user with an avatar that mirrors the gestures of the user. As Sitrick relates to managing collaboration for documents (e.g., Sitrick, paragraph [0003]), and Huang provides a method for facilitating social interactions in virtual systems (e.g., Huang, page 1, column 1, abstract), one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods; in combination, the collaboration management of Sitrick and the facial tracking digital avatar of Huang merely perform the same functions as they do separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the combination as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Sitrick with Huang to provide an additional means of communication to the collaboration environment of Sitrick.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gladwin (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0222753 A1) teaches a method for updating shared data in a dispersed storage network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is (571)272-3731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9A-5P PST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571) 272-3676. 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.
/K.H.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights