DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
The following is a Non-Final Office Action. In response to Examiner's communication on 11/20/2025, Applicant on 02/12/2026, amended Claims 1, 13-14 and added Claims 15-16. Claims 1-16 are now pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendments are not found to overcome the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections are updated to address the amendments and maintained as set forth below.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 103
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-16 under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant firstly argues that Evans fails to disclose or suggest “the specific information in the first region comprises an error symbol indicating an inclusion of the error”, and “if the error symbol corresponding to the process of the whole workflow displayed in the first region is selected by a user, display at a specific location of the second region a setting field of the setting contents including the error in the process corresponding to the selected error symbol”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s conceptualization of the invention is not necessitated by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. The error symbol is expressly the tally of errors, “displayed in the first region as part of the workflow” as Applicant asserts the error symbol must fulfill in Page 4 of Remarks filed 02/12/2026. In Col 5 Lines 39-43 of Evans, "For example, the error indicator may be enabled when a user selects the tally of errors in Form N (236). This selection by the user results in a display of form N and identifies one or more fields with form N with errors in the associated user input". The act of selection of the tally of errors, or the error symbol, identifies fields with errors in them. Without any restriction as to the form of the error symbol, Evans teaches, in the form of the tally of errors, the claimed functionality.
Applicant further asserts that McWhinnie’s does not teach “a second region displaying setting contents in each process forming the whole workflow”. Examiner respectfully notes that this argument is rendered moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s claims, and points to the updated rejections below, in which Nagar discloses this limitation.
Applicant further asserts that Nagar fails to teach the visualization of an entire workflow composed of multiple sub-processes as required by Claim 2. Examiner respectfully disagrees. See Col 7 Lines 26-45 of Nagar, “The inventive system allows the creation of multi-tier hierarchical program structures. The system includes a wizard for user to generate these structures…Virtually unlimited nested tiers can be generated. In the current embodiment/implementation of the system, we provide at least three unique multi-level types of nodes. The number of nesting within each type is virtually unlimited. The top node type will model one or more nesting layers of mega-programs, each mega-program can have one or more nesting layers of programs below it, and each program can have one or more nesting layers of projects below it. The middle node type will model one or more nesting layers of activity groups that are nested under a project node from any layer of a project node. The bottom node type will model one or more nesting layers of tasks that are nested under an activity group node from any layer of activity group (a task could be created under the top activity group, any in-between activity groups or last activity group)”. These nodes are conceptually grouped hierarchically. Here, Nagar teaches that the bottom nodes can represent tasks, with higher nodes representing activity groups and higher levels of abstraction. This exactly discloses workflows and sub-processes; the nodes represent this hierarchy.
Accordingly, the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been updated to address the amendments and maintained below.
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.
Claims 1,2,4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans(US 8234562 B1 )n further view of Nagar(US 8738414 B1).
Claims 1, 13, 14
As to Claim 1,
Evans teaches:
An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor
In Col 8 Lines 24-35, “The invention may be implemented on virtually any type of computer regardless of the platform being used. For example, as shown in FIG. 6, a computer system (600) includes a processor (602), associated memory (604), a storage device (606), and numerous other elements and functionalities typical of today's computers (not shown). The computer (600) may also include input means, such as a keyboard (608) and a mouse (610), and output means, such as a monitor (612). The computer system (600) is connected to a LAN or a WAN (e.g., the Internet) (614) via a network interface connection. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that these input and output means may take other forms”.
configured to: display on a same screen a first region displaying a whole workflow of processes
See Figure 5. In the left hand pane, we have a whole workflow of processes(Forms in Use, 530). On the right hand side, we have the fields of a particular form 520.
if an error is included in the setting contents of one of the processes,
display specific information on the process having the setting contents including the error in the first region
In Fig. 5, we can see the tally of the errors, 532, adjacent to the title of the corresponding form in use under Forms in Use, 530.
in a manner such that the specific information in the first region comprises an error symbol indicating an inclusion of the error;
See Fig. 5, Tally of Errors 532, “1 Error”. We understand that to denote the error symbol indicating an inclusion of the error, with the specific information comprising the tally.
and if the error symbol corresponding to the process of the whole workflow displayed in the first region is selected by a user, display at a specific location of the second region a setting field of the setting contents including the error in the process corresponding to the selected error symbol.
In Col 5 Lines 39-43, "For example, the error indicator may be enabled when a user selects the tally of errors in Form N (236). This selection by the user results in a display of form N and identifies one or more fields with form N with errors in the associated user input".
Evans does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Nagar teaches:
and a second region displaying setting contents in each process forming the whole workflow;
Noting the display of all tasks nested under a node in Col 7 Lines 26-45, “The inventive system allows the creation of multi-tier hierarchical program structures. The system includes a wizard for user to generate these structures…The bottom node type will model one or more nesting layers of tasks that are nested under an activity group node from any layer of activity group (a task could be created under the top activity group, any in-between activity groups or last activity group)”. Now getting the summary of all child nodes from a parent node in a separate pane, in Col 7 Lines 56-63, “By selecting a node from the tree, its child nodes are listed to the right of the tree in a LIST VIEW mode or Graphical User Interface (GUI) pane, showing a summary of all its attributes (data fields). The view is scrollable horizontally and vertically to display all data. Fly-out help labels are displayed as the cursor moves over values. The cells (or data) can be hyper-links to another tree node or UI function when clicked by the user”.
Nagar discloses a system for enhancing the management of workflows and processes. Evans discloses a system for enhancing the correction of errors in forms. Each reference discloses means for streamlining task management in the context of a larger workflow. Extending the management of logical relationships of Nagar is applicable to the system of Evans as they are both concerned with the task of task management in the context of a larger workflow.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the management of logical relationships of Nagar and apply that to the system of Evans. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting such logical relationships would allow more effective management of tasks and dependencies in the overall workflow.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected as presenting substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Claim 13 additionally recites “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”. This is disclosed by Evans in Claim 16, “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions to display a user interface”.
Claim 2
As to Claim 2, Evans combined with Nagar teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Evans teaches:
including the error
In Fig. 5, we can see the error indicator 524 and the specific details of the error in tool tip 526, corresponding to the selected process that includes that error.
in a manner such that the specific information … having setting contents including the error comprises the error symbol
Note the Tally of Errors 532 in Fig. 5, with “1 Error”.
Evans does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Nagar teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to, if the process having the setting contents … includes a plurality of sub-processes and the specific information on the process displayed in the first region and having the setting contents … is selected by the user, display, in the first region, specific information on each sub-process forming the process corresponding to the selected specific information and display specific information on the sub-process having setting contents …,
in Col 7 Lines 56-59, "By selecting a node from the tree, its child nodes are listed to the right of the tree in a LIST VIEW mode or Graphical User Interface (GUI) pane, showing a summary of all its attributes (data fields)". In Col 11 Line 64 - Col 12 Line 27, "Business Function, "Issue Management", provides support for the functions as listed, but are not limited to:..7--ability to centralize/segregate issues across programs and pertinent sub-nodes or segregate issues by user selectable nodes". In Col 22 Lines 13-21, "The Programs Structure (i.e., the Node Tree Hierarchy) pane 210 displays each created structure of nodes 221 and sub-nodes 220, with each node allowing access to available functions 204. Double-clicking on a node 202, 220 or other means allow the lower level sub-nodes expanded in the same pane, and invocation of the List View pane 217 that display pertinent information, and enables creation/modification/deletion and other operational actions".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the management of logical relationships of Nagar and apply that to the system of Evans. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 4
As to Claim 4, Evans combined with Nagar teaches all the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above.
Evans teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to, if the error symbol corresponding to the … having setting contents including the error is selected by the user, display, at a specific location of the second region, a setting field of the setting contents including the error in the … corresponding to the selected error symbol.
In Col 8 Lines 15-19, "At any later point, when the user is working on the same information worksheet form (520) or another form in use (530), the user may select the tally of errors (532) associated with the information worksheet form (520) and return to the erroneous field identified by the error indicator (524)".
Nagar teaches:
sub-process
In Col 22 Lines 13-21, "The Programs Structure (i.e., the Node Tree Hierarchy) pane 210 displays each created structure of nodes 221 and sub-nodes 220, with each node allowing access to available functions 204. Double-clicking on a node 202, 220 or other means allow the lower level sub-nodes expanded in the same pane, and invocation of the List View pane 217 that display pertinent information, and enables creation/modification/deletion and other operational actions".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the management of logical relationships of Nagar and apply that to the system of Evans. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 5
As to Claim 5, Evans combined with Nagar teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
However, Evans teaches:The information processing apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to display the error symbol… in association…the setting contents including the error and displayed in the second region.
In Figure 5, we have "1 Error" 532, as well as a Tally of Errors 232 in Figure 2. In Col 8 Lines 15-19, "At any later point, when the user is working on the same information worksheet form (520) or another form in use (530), the user may select the tally of errors (532) associated with the information worksheet form (520) and return to the erroneous field identified by the error indicator (524)".
Evans does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.However, Nagar teaches:
error…at and in association with a setting field of the setting contents including the error
In Col 11 Lines 64 - Col 12 Lines 1-29, "Business Function, "Issue Management", provides support for the functions as listed, but are not limited to: 1. Ability to associate, manage, track and report issues at any node of the tree. 2. Ability to add issues and sub-issues in a nested form; each lower level issue can be treated, tracked, managed and reported as an independent issue while interlinked with a master/parent issue. 3. Ability to manage workflow of the lifecycle of an issue. 4. Tracks profiling information via organized tabs, such as issue source, environment it occurred in, and other pertinent supporting details...8--ability to generate and display issues status, summary and statistical information graphically".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the management of logical relationships of Nagar and apply that to the system of Evans. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 6
As to Claim 6, Evans combined with Nagar teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
However, Evans teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to display the error symbol in a manner such that a number of setting contents including the error in the process having the setting contents including the error is clarified.
In Figure 5, we have "1 Error" 532, as well as a Tally of Errors 232 in Figure 2.
Claim 7
As to Claim 7, Evans combined with Nagar teaches all the limitations of Claim 6 as discussed above.
However, Evans teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 6, wherein the error symbol represents, by using a numeral, the number of setting contents including the error in the process.
In Figure 5, we have "1 Error" 532, as well as a Tally of Errors 232 in Figure 2.
Claim 8
As to Claim 8, Evans combined with Nagar teaches all the limitations of Claim 6 as discussed above.
Evans teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to display the error symbols by the number of setting contents including the errors in the process
In Figure 5, we have "1 Error" 532, as well as a Tally of Errors 232 in Figure 2.
error symbols
Again with reference to Fig. 5, we have an error indicator 524, an indication of the error in the first region, namely "1 error" 532.
including the error
In Fig. 5, we can see the error indicator 524 and the specific details of the error in tool tip 526, corresponding to the selected process that includes that error.
Evans combined with Nagar does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Nagar teaches:
in a manner such that the … symbols are associated with the specific information on the process having the setting contents
In Col 11 Lines 64 - Col 12 Lines 1-29, "Business Function, "Issue Management", provides support for the functions as listed, but are not limited to: 1. Ability to associate, manage, track and report issues at any node of the tree. 2. Ability to add issues and sub-issues in a nested form; each lower level issue can be treated, tracked, managed and reported as an independent issue while interlinked with a master/parent issue. 3. Ability to manage workflow of the lifecycle of an issue. 4. Tracks profiling information via organized tabs, such as issue source, environment it occurred in, and other pertinent supporting details...8--ability to generate and display issues status, summary and statistical information graphically".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the management of logical relationships of Nagar and apply that to the system of Evans. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 9
As to Claim 9, Evans combined with Nagar teaches all the limitations of Claim 8 as discussed above.
Evans teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to, if one of the error symbols is selected by the user, display, at a specific location of the second region, a setting field of the setting contents corresponding to the selected error symbol.
In Col 5 Lines 39-43, "For example, the error indicator may be enabled when a user selects the tally of errors in Form N (236). This selection by the user results in a display of form N and identifies one or more fields with form N with errors in the associated user input".
Claim 10
As to Claim 10, Evans combined with Nagar teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Evans teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to, if the error symbol is displayed at and in association with the setting field of the setting contents including the error and displayed in the second region,
In Figure 5, we have "1 Error" 532, as well as a Tally of Errors 232 in Figure 2. In Col 8 Lines 15-19, "At any later point, when the user is working on the same information worksheet form (520) or another form in use (530), the user may select the tally of errors (532) associated with the information worksheet form (520) and return to the erroneous field identified by the error indicator (524)".
error symbol
In Figure 5, we have "1 Error" 532, as well as a Tally of Errors 232 in Figure 2.
Evans does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Nagar teaches:
perform control to display the … symbol in a superior-subordinate relationship if the setting contents are in the superior-subordinate relationship.
In Col 11 Lines 64 - Col 12 Lines 1-29, "Business Function, "Issue Management", provides support for the functions as listed, but are not limited to: 1. Ability to associate, manage, track and report issues at any node of the tree. 2. Ability to add issues and sub-issues in a nested form; each lower level issue can be treated, tracked, managed and reported as an independent issue while interlinked with a master/parent issue. 3. Ability to manage workflow of the lifecycle of an issue. 4. Tracks profiling information via organized tabs, such as issue source, environment it occurred in, and other pertinent supporting details...8--ability to generate and display issues status, summary and statistical information graphically".
Nagar does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the management of logical relationships of Nagar and apply that to the system of Evans. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 2.
Claim 11
As to Claim 11, Evans combined with Nagar teaches all the limitations of Claim 10 as discussed above.
Evans teaches:
error symbol
In Figure 5, we have "1 Error" 532, as well as a Tally of Errors 232 in Figure 2.
Evans does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Nagar teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to perform control such that the … symbol is not displayed at a setting field of the setting contents that are subordinate.
In Col 11 Lines 64 - Col 12 Lines 1-4, " Business Function, "Issue Management", provides support for the functions as listed, but are not limited to: 1. Ability to associate, manage, track and report issues at any node of the tree. 2. Ability to add issues and sub-issues in a nested form; each lower level issue can be treated, tracked, managed and reported as an independent issue while interlinked with a master/parent issue". In Claim 14, "The method of claim 1, further supporting a user interface comprising the organizational steps of: dividing the display area other than menu and tool bars into a vertical command list of business functions to the left of the screen, a horizontal list of support function buttons at the top of the screen, and a data display pane at the center; further dividing the data display pane into three panes, one vertical to the left called the Hierarchy Pane and two horizontal panes to the right, the List View Pane at the top and the Detail Pane at the bottom; displaying the said hierarchy using a tree control in the vertical Hierarchy Pane with the ability to expand and collapse any part of the tree, access any of its nodes and invoke any of the business and support functions at that node using right button of mouse to list the functions and left button of the mouse to invoke a function. We construe the ability to render the display such that we can collapse subordinate nodes to disclose this limitation, as those nodes won't appear in our pane.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the management of logical relationships of Nagar and apply that to the system of Evans. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 2.
Claim 12
As to Claim 12, Evans combined with Nagar teaches all the limitations of Claim 10 as discussed above.
Evans teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to, if the error symbol displayed at and in association with a setting field of the setting contents
In Figure 5, we have "1 Error" 532, as well as a Tally of Errors 232 in Figure 2.
Evans does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Nagar teaches:
that are subordinate is selected by the user, display, at a specific location of the second region, a setting field of the setting contents that are superior and correspond to the subordinate setting contents.
In Claim 1, "A computer implemented method for the management of divisional entities and extremely large programs and projects comprising: a computer performing the steps of: building a nested hierarchy of nodes representing multiple logical and geographic partitions of a local or global divisional Enterprise or Government entity, and the mega-programs and mega-projects that can span several of those partitions...enabling upward and downward navigation from a node indicating the presence of exceptions or issues to the dependent nodes where the exceptions originated".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the management of logical relationships of Nagar and apply that to the system of Evans. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 2.
Claim 15
As to Claim 15, Evans combined with Nagar teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Evans teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the whole workflow in the first region comprises a first process having a first error symbol displayed thereon and a second process having a second error symbol displayed thereon,
See the two Forms in Use in Fig. 5, corresponding to two distinct error symbols (error tallies 532).
wherein the processor is configured to: in response to the first error symbol is selected by the user, display, in the second region, at a first setting field of setting contents including a first error in the first process; and in response to the second error symbol is selected by the user, display, in the second region, at a second setting field of setting contents including a second error in the second process.
In Col 5 Lines 39-43, "For example, the error indicator may be enabled when a user selects the tally of errors in Form N (236). This selection by the user results in a display of form N and identifies one or more fields with form N with errors in the associated user input". Note that these error tallies are associated with the fields in the form they correspond to; it is implicit that selecting the error symbol for a given form yields the corresponding setting contents for the given process.
Claims 3, 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans(US 8234562 B1) in view of Nagar(US 8738414 B1) in further view of Jarvis(US 20160224214 A1).
Claim 3
As to Claim 3, Evans combined with Nagar teaches all the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above.
Evans teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to display contents of the error if the … having the setting contents including the error is moused over by the user.
In Col 7 Lines 4-10, "In addition to the tally of errors and the identification of the errors, tool tips associated with the errors may also be displayed, in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention (Step 370). The tool tip may be activated by a user selection (e.g., selecting or scrolling over an identified error), activated automatically by erroneous input, or implemented based on another suitable scheme".
Evans combined with Nagar does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Jarvis teaches:
error symbol corresponding to the sub-process
Pointing to Fig. 5K, Noting the error symbols, 114A-2 and 114A-3 adjacent to and thereby associated with error descriptions 115A-3 and 115A-4, respectively. We consider the errors to be implicitly representative of subprocesses, as they represent defects with components of some underlying process or mechanism of the workflow.
Evans combined with Nagar discloses a system for enhancing the correction of errors in forms, with support for expanded informational views in workflows. Jarvis discloses means for GUI management in interfacing with imaging workflows. Each reference discloses means for optimizing GUI display and control in the context of a larger workflow. Extending the error display of Jarvis is applicable to the system of Evans combined with Nagar as they are both concerned with the task of task management in the context of a larger workflow, as well as the shared problem of GUI design in the context of said workflow.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the error display of Jarvis and apply that to the system of Evans combined with Nagar. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that leveraging the usage of multiple error logos would readily clarify what the constituent errors in the tally of errors correspond to, enabling users to differentiate between different errors.
Claim 16
As to Claim 16, Evans combined with Nagar teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Evans teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the whole workflow in the first region comprises a first process having a first error symbol
See Fig. 5, and Tally of Errors 532 with “1 Error”
wherein the processor is configured to: in response to the … error … is selected by the user, display, in the second region, at a first setting field of setting contents including the first error in the first process; and in response to the … error …is selected by the user, display, in the second region, at a second setting field of setting contents including the second error in the first process.
In Col 5 Lines 39-43, "For example, the error indicator may be enabled when a user selects the tally of errors in Form N (236). This selection by the user results in a display of form N and identifies one or more fields with form N with errors in the associated user input". Note the support for a plurality of fields.
Evans combined with Nagar does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Jarvis teaches:
wherein the whole workflow… comprises a first process having a first error symbol and a second error symbol displayed thereon,
Pointing to Fig. 5K, Noting the error symbols, 114A-2 and 114A-3 adjacent to and thereby associated with error descriptions 115A-3 and 115A-4, respectively.
first error symbol…second error symbol
See Fig. 5K as outlined above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the error display of Jarvis and apply that to the system of Evans combined with Nagar. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE L XIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/THEODORE XIE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights