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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 63-66, 68-78 and 81-88 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s 12/23/2025 amendment filing with the Office. In the amendment, claims 1-62, 67, 79, and 80 were previously canceled. Claims 63, 72, 74, 77, 78, and 82-86 are amended. No claims are newly added, canceled, or withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant makes the following argument:
Claim 63 allows the real-time monitoring and identification of parameter values to be performed in physical projects that, for example occur in facilities or plants. Remarks p.10-11.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. As claimed the real-time monitoring to identify parameter value patterns was identified as part of the abstract idea when the limitations are considered as part of the ordered combination to generated warning signal. Where the specification provides “Signals received or detected can e.g. indicate operating units and/or deployment unit activities as project collaborators accessing a project through the digital platform providing a web-based collaboration environment or online collaboration platform.” (Spec. p.8 at 31-34).
Where the alarm as claimed is a signal to the human user to trigger a human response – which is found to be the management of personal behavior. For these reasons the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained.
Amended claim 63 represent technological improvement that integrates any abstract idea upon which amended claim 63 might touch into a practical application. Remarks p. 11.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. The claims are not found to integrate the identified abstract idea when considered individually or in the combination. For these reasons the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant makes the following argument: Robertson, is primarily directed to managing software-based services rather than physical projects (Robertson, [0079]-[0090]). Roberston explicitly describes its system as being for management of information technologies (Robertson, [0079]). Thus, Roberston is confined to information technology (i.e., software-based) projects, not physical projects as now defined in amended Claim 63. Therefore, Robertson does not disclose or suggest the amended features of Claim 63. Remarks p. 11.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. As claimed the “physical” project is described at a high level without any physical components; thus the software project is found to be analogous to the physical project in that both types of project have task and humans that interact with the projects task and management. For these reasons the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 63-66, 68-78 and 81-88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 63-66, 68-78 and 81-88 are to digital platform (machine).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. Where certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
Claim 63 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
63. (Currently Amended) A digital platform for providing controlled project-driven networking interaction, the digital platform comprising:
server having persistent storage in which a physical project in a facility or a plant, the physical project comprising a set of tasks received at the server is stored;
operating units and deployment units communicatively coupled to the server via a data transmission network, the operating devices and deployment devices performing the tasks of the physical project unless a warning signal issued;
an access controller constructed to generate a dedicated network over which one of the operating devices and one or more of the deployment devices associated with the physical project communicate only after a relationship has been assigned between the physical project, the operating unit and the deployment units;
a network interface constructed to provide network access to the dedicated network by the operating devices and deployment devices in the assigned relationship with the physical project via the data transmission network, the network interface affording exclusive sharing of project data between the operating unit and deployment units in the assigned relationship;
a task selector constructed to select a task from the physical project for execution by a deployment unit in the assigned relationship by skill certifications associated with a selected task with at least one certified deployment unit having obtained the skill certifications needed for the selected task; and
a matcher including one or more machine-based learning structures and constructed to access dedicated measurement devices and sensors to monitor the development of the physical project through parameter values, the matcher performing real-time analysis and quality control of the development of the physical project and includes a digital replica of the physical project that is analyzed to provide a prediction of a future state of the physical project based on the probability of a development pattern, the matcher using machine learning to identify in real time parameter value patterns within the development of the physical project and to generate the warning signal responsive to the occurrence of a predefined project development error event,
wherein the machine-based learning structure comprise hill climbing, genetic, or evolutionary machine-based learning structures.
The facilitate communication between users of a project platform to alert the user of . Where the platform is used as a tool to manage interactions between people – and task assignment (where assignment is based on skill certifications associated with a selected task) and warning the user of predefined project development error event. Where the claimed invention is found to be direct to the following instructions, that is to say instructing people on which task to complete and warnings about project development error events. It is noted that the claims have been amended to recite “real-time” and “physical project”; however neither of these elements negates the purpose the reasons the claims are found to be directed towards the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The communication elements are determined to be perform the functions of data gathering – insignificant extra-solution activities.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination.
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 63-66, 68-78 and 81-85 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson et al (US 2002/0173984 A1) in view of Unsal et al (US 2018/0018582 A1).
Claim 63
Robertson teaches a digital platform for providing controlled project-driven networking interaction (Robertson [83] “single platform is a powerful incentive for businesses”), the digital platform comprising:
server having persistent storage in which a physical project in a facility or a plant, the physical project comprising a set of tasks received at the server is stored (Robertson [295] “All access to persistent business object data is effected through remote calls to the object interface of the entity instances that are managed by the container . . . persistent storage” where the art teaches [124] “physical hardware” in a physical location – “an exemplary territory is exhibited in the state of Virginia where three sites have been designated for the distribution of physical hardware denoted hereon in the Figure as geographic sites A, B and C. Each geographic site contains racks of physical hardware, racks 1-n, including various servers 604A-C available from a variety of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)”);
operating devices and deployment devices communicatively coupled to the server via a data transmission network (Robertson [156] “the deployment of a service on any machine anywhere as quickly as possible without human intervention.”, [171] “he communication service is dynamic with run-time announcements of producer and consumer registrations, including topics. (Traditionally, these communications' channels were fixed by the logical, initial configuration and physical deployment of a distributed system.)”, and [230] “unit-of-work is managed by transaction managers 912A at the domain level”), the operating devices and deployment devices performing the tasks of the physical project unless a warning signal is issued (Roberts [475] “alerting people to the fact that a problem spans multiple areas”);
an access controller constructed to generate a dedicated network over which one of the operating device and one or more of the deployment devices associated with the physical project communicate only after a relationship has been assigned between the physical project, the operating unit and the deployment units (Robertson [542] “dispatching rules are responsible for determining which contacts need to be invited to participate in, and ultimately resolve, the Workltem. In order to define the participation needed to resolve the WorkItem, rules identify roles to be filled by "appropriately skilled" Contact(s).” and [570] “Dispatcher Service queries the WorkItem for a list of invitations that need to be dispatched and then performs a registrar lookup for the Contact's proxy (UserAvatar) by Contact ID. Upon return of the contact proxy from lookup, the Dispatcher Service performs a "send" request passing the invitation. The contact proxy is responsible for determining where the invitation should be sent and how it should be formatted.”);
a network interface constructed to provide network access to the dedicated network by the operating unit and deployment units in the assigned relationship with the physical project via the data transmission network, the network interface affording exclusive sharing of project data between the operating unit and deployment units in the assigned relationship (Robertson [100] “network using an "object bus" or "software bus," a software-based communications interface through which objects are located and accessed” and [102] “dynamic invocation (not shown) allows for the specification of requests at runtime whenever the object interface is not known at runtime and utilizes the interface repository. Each CORBA implementation comes with one or more IDL compilers (not shown) that know the language mapping for the language in which they were designed (i.e., that used by client application 312).”);
a task selector constructed to select a task from the physical project for execution by a deployment device in the assigned relationship by skill certifications associated with a selected task with at least one certified deployment device having obtained the skill certifications needed for the selected task (Robertson [258] “process begins with client 1006 searching local domain registrar 1014B's lookup for a service that matches service attributes needed to accomplish some task (step 1132).” [421] “directly routing work to the best currently available operations staff that is automatically assembled based on the individual staff members' aptitude for particular tasks in a process flow”, and [423] “customer and network care staff--a reference to history of past work, interactions, and success ratings (knowledge base”) ; and
a matcher . . . constructed to access dedicated measurement devices and sensors to monitor the development of the physical project through parameter values, the matcher performing real-time analysis (Roberts [95] “generic algorithms that can be tailored to a business' needs by the user selection of values for parametric constraint variables”, [324] “steward is logically central, but for access, availability and latency considerations, could be physically composed of federated, cooperating components constituting a logically unified steward service. Within every multicast domain, there exists a plurality of satellites, depicted as satellites 2012-2018. Steward 2010 provides a measure of central management to the present invention” and [99] “processes (components/objects) to be executed in real-time”) and quality control of the development of the physical project and includes a digital replica of the physical project that is analyzed to provide a prediction of a future state of the physical project based on the probability of a development pattern, the matcher using machine learning to identify in real time parameter value patterns within the development of the physical project and to generate the warning signal responsive to the occurrence of a predefined physical project development error event (Roberts [313] “Replication of databases using conventional commercial products can be used for purposes of fault tolerance and disaster recovery.”, [495] “proxies to intelligent devices and agents for devices to directly interact with these devices”, and [475] “alerting people to the fact that a problem spans multiple areas” and [99] “processes (components/objects) to be executed in real-time”)
Robertson further teaches “generic algorithms that can be tailored to a business' needs by the user selection of values for parametric constraint variables” (Robertson [95]) but does not expressly teach the claimed limitation of including one or more machine-based learning structures and wherein the machine-based learning structure comprises hill climbing, genetic or evolutionary machine-based learning structures.
Unsal in the analogous art of automatic learning teaches the claimed limitations of including one or more machine-based learning structures (Unsal [7] “utilize machine learning and genetic algorithms to quickly and accurately determine an acceptable function needed to complete the one or more data fields.”, where the claims are made in the alternative only one elements needs to be found in the argument) and wherein the machine-based learning structure comprises hill climbing, genetic or evolutionary machine-based learning structures (Unsal [7] “methods and systems for automatically incorporating new or updated forms by utilizing machine learning using genetic programming and genetic algorithms in conjunction with training set data”, where the claimed limitation is made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Robertson the machine-based learning structure comprises hill climbing, genetic or evolutionary machine-based learning structures as taught by Unsal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 64
Robertson teaches all the limitations of the digital platform according to claim 63, further comprising a scoring structure by which skills associated with the operating unit are scored based on best skill matching (Robertson [528]).
Claim 65
Robertson teaches all the limitations of the digital platform according to claim 63, further comprising a scoring structure by which skills associated with the operating unit are scored based on a best-for-platform-growth structure providing higher scores to deployment units that have conducted a number of tasks using the digital platform that is less than a threshold number (Robertson [18], [416-417], and [528]).
Claim 66
Robertson teaches all the limitations of the digital platform according to claim 63, wherein the matcher matches the skill certifications associated with the selected task with the certified deployment device (Robertson [15] and [187]).
Claim 68
Robertson teaches all the limitations of the digital platform according to claim 63, further comprising a dispatcher constructed to notify the selected one or more deployment units (Robertson [422]).
Claim 69
Robertson teaches all the limitations of the digital platform according to claim 68, the dispatcher comprises an auction process providing access to a specific task to suitable deployment units (Robertson [422], see bump work).
Claim 70
Robertson teaches all the limitations of the digital platform according to claim 63, wherein the assigned relationship defines a hierarchical structure comprising a first subgroup of operating units defined by respective operating device accounts and a second subgroup of deployment units defined by respective deployment device accounts (Robertson [460] see tree for the equivalent of hierarchical).
Claim 71
Robertson teaches all the limitations of the digital platform according to claim 70, characterized in that wherein access to the dedicated network over the network interface is different for the first subgroup of the operating units and the second subgroup of the deployment units (Robertson [496]).
Claim 72
Robertson teaches all the limitations of the digital platform according to claim 71, further comprising a project analyzer constructed to generate the physical project from submission data transferred from an operating unit and to store the project in the persistent storage (Robertson [418] and [457]).
Claim 73
Robertson teaches all the limitations of the digital platform according to claim 72, wherein the task selector is further constructed to select one or more tasks for execution by the deployment unit based on project data associated with the project (Robertson [80] and [424]).
Claim 74
Robertson teaches all the limitations of the digital platform according to claim 73, wherein the deployment unit is selected based on deployment unit profiles that are matched to the selected task and relationship data defining the assigned relationship between the physical project and the task to be performed (Robertson [314] and [517]).
Claim 75
Robertson teaches all the limitations of the digital platform according to claim 74, wherein each of the deployment unit profiles comprises at least one certified task accreditation for the selected task (Robertson [519-521]).
Claim 76
Robertson teaches all the limitations of the digital platform of claim 63, wherein the network interface comprises a web server through which selectable productivity tools are accessible, the productivity tools comprising one or more of a task manager module, a collaboration module a document management module (Robertson [229] and [418]).
Claim 77
Robertson teaches all the limitations of the digital platform according to claim 63, further comprising a quote module constructed to retrieve financial information associated with the physical project and to store the retrieved financial information in the persistent storage (Robertson [81], [175], and [179]).
Claim 78
Robertson teaches all the limitations of the digital platform according to claim 77, wherein the financial information includes, financial account information relative to the operating device and the deployment devices, a cost basis and evaluation data generated from the financial account information, retrieved task characteristics data associated with the physical project (Robertson [109], [175], and [179]).
Claim 81
Robertson teaches all the limitations of the digital platform according to claim 63, further comprising a task certification data repository of task certifications obtained by the deployment units through a certification evaluation process for approving the deployment unit for the task through a corresponding certified task accreditation the specific task assigned to the deployment unit (Robertson [542]).
Claim 82
Robertson teaches all the limitations of the digital platform according to claim 63, further comprising at least one sensor among the sensor by which structural, operational and/or environmental status parameters of physical execution of the physical project are measured, monitored, and transmitted to the server, the sensor being associated with a real-world asset transmitting the parameters values, the parameter values being assigned to a digital replica of the physical project that is dynamically monitored and adapted based on the transmitted parameter values, the digital replica including data structures representing states of each of a plurality of subsystems of the physical project and future states of the subsystems of the physical project that are generated as a time series over a future time period based on simulations the digital being analyzed for a future state or operation of the physical project based on the generated time series over the future time period (Robertson [214-216], [280], [284-285], [479], [519], and [558]).
Claim 83
Robertson teaches all the limitations of the digital platform according to claim 82, wherein control of an operation or status of the development of the physical project is adjusted to converge with predefined operational parameters for the physical project based on the generated value time series of values over the future time period (Robertson [196], [203], and [231]).
Claim 84
Robertson teaches all the limitations of the digital platform according to claim 82, wherein an occurrence probability of anormal development of the physical project is based on an adjusted interaction of at least one operational unit with the physical project (Robertson [283]).
Claim 85
Robertson teaches all the limitations of the digital platform according to claim 63, further comprising an evolving digital representation of the project by which physical project development times series are predicted and by which anomaly occurrences measurements are quantified from the times series (Robertson [283]).
Claim 86
Robertson in view of Unsal teach all the limitations of the digital platform according to claim 63, Robertson further teaches wherein appropriate skill certifications are determined for a specific task associated with the physical project . . . included in the matcher (Robertson [558-560]), and at least one deployment device is determined based on the determined skill certifications needed (Robertson [558-560]) and additional trigger criteria including at least a location of the operating device of the submission data and a location of available deployment devices (Roberson [563]).
Robertson does not expressly teach the claimed steps are carried out “via a machine-based matching structure”. This limitation is taught in the analogous art of automatic learning by Unsal (Unsal [7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Robertson the via a machine-based matching structure as taught by Unsal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 87
Robertson in view of Unsal teach all the limitations of the digital platform according to claim 86, wherein, to select the deployment device, the determined skill certification includes mandatory and optional skills determined . . . to perform the selected task, the mandatory skill are required to complete the selected task, the optional skills include at least a speaking language parameter or additional skill parameter denoting additional services or equipment (Roberts [95] and [314]).
Robertson does not expressly teach the claimed steps are carried out “by the machine-based matching structure”. This limitation is taught in the analogous art of automatic learning by Unsal (Unsal [7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Robertson the by the machine-based matching structure as taught by Unsal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 88
Robertson in view of Unsal teach all the limitations of the digital platform according to claim 87, wherein to select the deployment device, the available deployment devices are filtered for the mandatory skills . . . while scoring is applied for the optional skills by the machine-based matching structure, a higher score being prioritized for selection and triggering by the machine learning (Roberts [95] and [314]).
Robertson does not expressly teach the claimed steps are carried out “by the machine learning”. This limitation is taught in the analogous art of automatic learning by Unsal (Unsal [7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Robertson the by the machine learning as taught by Unsal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stephens et al (US 2014/0172678 A1) teaches Reduced cost/schedule overruns and increased delivered functionality on individual projects through improved risk management, early warning of developing problems, and rapid identification of systemically effective solutions (minimum 10% gains, often much more).
Joao (US 2021/0357870 A1) teaches detecting the posting of any jobs, projects, or assignments, of interest to the user or individual, the central processing computer can generate a job alert message or a project alert message automatically and can automatically transmit the same to the user's or individual's user communication device.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights