DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's application filed on 13 December 2022. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-20 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (method, computer program product and system). Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1, 7 and 15 recite the abstract idea of deriving, by analyzing activity monitoring data, a task pattern, the task pattern comprising a set of one or more tasks and identifying the task pattern as a candidate task pattern responsive to determining that a completion variability in the task pattern is above a threshold amount and identifying, by analyzing performance data of a system used in performing the candidate task pattern, an optimum time at which to perform the candidate task pattern and delaying, responsive to detecting commencement of performance, at a time earlier than the optimum time, performance of the candidate task pattern; and performing, at the optimum time, the candidate task pattern. The claims are directed to of scheduling of tasks. Under prong 1 of Step 2A, these claims are considered abstract because the claims are certain methods of organizing human activity such as certain methods of organizing human activity including commercial interactions (including business relations). The claims are a type of organizing human activity because the claims show identification of task patterns based on activity monitoring data (which can be considered human activity) and organization of such data by delaying performance of the task performance until an optimal time. Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and any additional elements individually or in combination such as computer implemented and computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage medium, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage medium, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform operations and a computer system comprising a processor and one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform operations) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. These limitations at best are merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as computer implemented and computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage medium, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage medium, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform operations and a computer system comprising a processor and one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform operations (as evidenced by para [0050]-[0065] of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field. Dependent claims 2-6, 8-14, 16-20 also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself by further showing deriving, by analyzing the activity monitoring data, a second task pattern; identifying the second task pattern as a second candidate task pattern responsive to determining that a completion variability in the second task pattern is above the threshold amount; identifying, by analyzing performance data of a second system used in performing the second candidate task pattern, a second optimum time at which to perform the second candidate task pattern; and alerting a user, responsive to detecting commencement of performance, at a second time earlier than the second optimum time, of the second candidate task pattern, of the second optimum time and alerting, at the second optimum time, the user to perform the second candidate task pattern and wherein the completion variability comprises a variability in a time elapsed while performing the task pattern and wherein the completion variability comprises a variability in a sequence of the set of tasks in the task pattern and wherein the performance data of the system used in performing the candidate task pattern comprises a completion time of an exploratory task performed on the system used in performing the candidate task pattern, the exploratory task corresponding to a task in the candidate task pattern.
Claims 8-20 are drawn to a computer readable storage medium. However, the medium, in accordance with a broadest reasonable interpretation, may be interpreted as being drawn to a transitory embodiment, and thus directed to non-statutory subject matter (e.g., transitory propagating signal). See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non- transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non- transitory" to the claim. Cf Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multicellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 US.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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoitsev (US 2009/0281865 A1) in view of Chisty (US 2021/0240531 A1)
Claims 1, 7 and 15:
Stoitsev, as shown, discloses the following limitations of claims 1, 7 and 15:
A computer-implemented method (and corresponding computer program product and system – see para [0052], showing equivalent computing functionality and components) comprising: deriving, by analyzing activity monitoring data, a task pattern, the task pattern comprising a set of one or more tasks (see para [0053], " As shown in FIG. 3, the method 300 commences at operation 310, where the commencement detector 232 detects that a task has been commenced. At operation 320, the ad-hoc events monitor 220 and the ad-hoc events collector 230 cooperate to monitor for and collect events related to the task. When the task completion detector 238 determines, at operation 330, that the task has been completed, the task pattern generator 240 may be invoked to generate a task pattern (e.g., in the form of an ad-hoc task pattern hierarchy) at operation 340. The generated task pattern is stored in the task patterns repository 142 at operation 350. Operations performed by the end-user-driven business process management system 200 in order to generate a formal workflow model based on a task pattern may be discussed with reference to FIG. 4." and see para [0073], "In deriving a formal process model based on a task pattern any available task change data may be utilized in order to determine the sequence flow or the order in which various tasks in the workflow are to be executed. The sequence flow may be determined, e.g., by examining task ranges of various tasks. A task range refers to the time, during which an ad-hoc task was executed (e.g., was being processed or acted on). A task range starts from the time when a first meaningful change referred to a Task Processing Change (TPC), indicating performance on a given task, is detected. A task range ends with the time when the task is completed. The range can be determined based on different criteria depending on what information is maintained for ad-hoc tasks. FIG. 6 shows how a task range is detected.");
identifying the task pattern as a candidate task pattern responsive to determining that a completion variability in the task pattern is above a threshold amount (see para [0046], " a tracker may detect that one or more subtasks of the main task have been delegated to certain users and collect such delegation data. The tracker may also detect that certain subtasks are being executed in parallel, e.g., by monitoring the status of subtasks indicating the percent completed values or any changes in target end task dates. The main task data collected in this manner may be then processed to construct a weakly-structured process model--a task pattern that represents ad-hoc task hierarchies associated with the main task. Thus generated task patterns may be expressed by a task delegation graphs (TDGs), as described further below." and see para [0074], " The associated task hierarchy is shown as element 630. At a given point in time (t1.1) the user performs a first TPC on Task1, which indicates an activity 622 on Task1. The criteria for a TPC, in one example embodiment, depends on what attributes are maintained for the task. Example attributes that may be maintained for a task (e.g., events associated with a task) may include increasing a `Percent Complete` value that indicates the percentage complete for the task, updating artifacts contained in a task, or changing the task description by preserving the current text and adding additional comments. In some systems, where users are allowed to annotate tasks and the associated documents, a TPC may be noted when a task or associated document is changed or when a user explicitly annotates that they are acting on that task." where a criteria for a percent complete value can be considered to show completion variability in the task pattern is above a threshold amount is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on broadest reasonable interpretation);
identifying, by analyzing performance data of a system used in performing the candidate task pattern, an optimum time at which to perform the candidate task pattern (see para [0073], "In deriving a formal process model based on a task pattern any available task change data may be utilized in order to determine the sequence flow or the order in which various tasks in the workflow are to be executed. The sequence flow may be determined, e.g., by examining task ranges of various tasks. A task range refers to the time, during which an ad-hoc task was executed (e.g., was being processed or acted on). A task range starts from the time when a first meaningful change referred to a Task Processing Change (TPC), indicating performance on a given task, is detected. A task range ends with the time when the task is completed. The range can be determined based on different criteria depending on what information is maintained for ad-hoc tasks. FIG. 6 shows how a task range is detected.");
Stoitsev, however, does not specifically disclose delaying, responsive to detecting commencement of performance, at a time earlier than the optimum time, performance of the candidate task pattern. In analogous art, Chisty discloses the following limitations:
delaying, responsive to detecting commencement of performance, at a time earlier than the optimum time, performance of the candidate task pattern (see para [0066]-[0067], "Consequently, to improve the performance of a high performing pairing strategy, it may be desirable to delay or otherwise postpone the selection of a pairing between an agent and a task when the number of pairing choices is too small to achieve the desired level of performance (e.g., when the number of pairing choices is below a predetermined threshold, or when the task assignment system 300 is in the L1 or L2 state). Postponing the selection may provide time for new tasks to be added to the queue or more agents to become available, thereby increasing the number of pairing choices. In some embodiments, delaying the selection may allow the task assignment system 300 to transition from an L1 or L2 state (where the number of pairing choices increases linearly with the number of tasks or agents) to an L3 state (where number of pairing choices increases super-linearly with the number of tasks or agents). When a pairing strategy is implemented by internal pairing system 390, postponing the selection can be implemented by directly monitoring the state of the task assignment system 300 and waiting until the number of pairing choices exceeds a threshold. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 10,257,354. However, for pairing strategies implemented by the external pairing system 395, adding a period of delay may involve an exchange of communications over an API between external pairing system 395 and task assignment system 300, as further described below."); and
performing, at the optimum time, the candidate task pattern (see para [0070], "At block 420, a pairing request (e.g., a routing request) may be transmitted to the external pairing system over the API. The pairing request may include information that causes the external pairing system to execute a pairing strategy to determine which of the one or more tasks is to be routed to which of the one or more agents. In some embodiments, the pairing request may be transmitted along with (e.g., in the same message as) the identification of the one or more tasks and the one or more agents at block 410." where it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that routing and identification of the task to the agent can be considered performing the task at that time as opposed to a different time where the task has not been paired)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Chishty with Stoitsev because delaying a task can enable a better pairing of the task and thus improve the overall strategy of task management (see Chishty, [0003]-[0008]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the task assignment system as taught by Chishty in the system to manage a business process of Stoitsev, 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.
Claims 2-4, 8-12, 16-18:
Further, Stoitsev discloses the following limitations:
deriving, by analyzing the activity monitoring data, a second task pattern (see para [0053], " As shown in FIG. 3, the method 300 commences at operation 310, where the commencement detector 232 detects that a task has been commenced. At operation 320, the ad-hoc events monitor 220 and the ad-hoc events collector 230 cooperate to monitor for and collect events related to the task. When the task completion detector 238 determines, at operation 330, that the task has been completed, the task pattern generator 240 may be invoked to generate a task pattern (e.g., in the form of an ad-hoc task pattern hierarchy) at operation 340. The generated task pattern is stored in the task patterns repository 142 at operation 350. Operations performed by the end-user-driven business process management system 200 in order to generate a formal workflow model based on a task pattern may be discussed with reference to FIG. 4." and see para [0073], "In deriving a formal process model based on a task pattern any available task change data may be utilized in order to determine the sequence flow or the order in which various tasks in the workflow are to be executed. The sequence flow may be determined, e.g., by examining task ranges of various tasks. A task range refers to the time, during which an ad-hoc task was executed (e.g., was being processed or acted on). A task range starts from the time when a first meaningful change referred to a Task Processing Change (TPC), indicating performance on a given task, is detected. A task range ends with the time when the task is completed. The range can be determined based on different criteria depending on what information is maintained for ad-hoc tasks. FIG. 6 shows how a task range is detected." and see para [0072], showing there can be multiple patterns for multiple users .);
identifying the second task pattern as a second candidate task pattern responsive to determining that a completion variability in the second task pattern is above the threshold amount (see para [0046], "a tracker may detect that one or more subtasks of the main task have been delegated to certain users and collect such delegation data. The tracker may also detect that certain subtasks are being executed in parallel, e.g., by monitoring the status of subtasks indicating the percent completed values or any changes in target end task dates. The main task data collected in this manner may be then processed to construct a weakly-structured process model--a task pattern that represents ad-hoc task hierarchies associated with the main task. Thus generated task patterns may be expressed by a task delegation graphs (TDGs), as described further below." and see para [0074], " The associated task hierarchy is shown as element 630. At a given point in time (t1.1) the user performs a first TPC on Task1, which indicates an activity 622 on Task1. The criteria for a TPC, in one example embodiment, depends on what attributes are maintained for the task. Example attributes that may be maintained for a task (e.g., events associated with a task) may include increasing a `Percent Complete` value that indicates the percentage complete for the task, updating artifacts contained in a task, or changing the task description by preserving the current text and adding additional comments. In some systems, where users are allowed to annotate tasks and the associated documents, a TPC may be noted when a task or associated document is changed or when a user explicitly annotates that they are acting on that task." where a criteria for a percent complete value can be considered to show completion variability in the task pattern is above a threshold amount is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on broadest reasonable interpretation and see para [0072], showing there can be multiple patterns for multiple users.);
identifying, by analyzing performance data of a second system used in performing the second candidate task pattern, a second optimum time at which to perform the second candidate task pattern (see para [0073], "In deriving a formal process model based on a task pattern any available task change data may be utilized in order to determine the sequence flow or the order in which various tasks in the workflow are to be executed. The sequence flow may be determined, e.g., by examining task ranges of various tasks. A task range refers to the time, during which an ad-hoc task was executed (e.g., was being processed or acted on). A task range starts from the time when a first meaningful change referred to a Task Processing Change (TPC), indicating performance on a given task, is detected. A task range ends with the time when the task is completed. The range can be determined based on different criteria depending on what information is maintained for ad-hoc tasks. FIG. 6 shows how a task range is detected." and see para [0077], "The task ranges may be seen as a simplified way to suggest task sequencing. The sequencing of tasks may be based on assumptions, and a user performing model transformation from ad-hoc TDG to formal WF may be able to view the execution history and the accompanying task changes and TDG evolution and to estimate whether the suggested sequencing is correct. The sequencing of tasks can be improved, e.g., as a TDG is being reused multiple times through Task Pattern (TP) reuse. For example, more ancestors/descendants for a given task may become available. The task ranges from different executions (ancestors/descendants) can be compared in order to deliver task sequencing with higher certainty. For example, tasks with ranges that overlap in multiple independent ancestor/descendant executions can be considered parallel with a greater degree of certainty. A basic mapping scheme from ad-hoc task hierarchies to BPMN entities follows, which considers the task range detection, is described above."); and
alerting a user, responsive to detecting commencement of performance, at a second time earlier than the second optimum time, of the second candidate task pattern, of the second optimum time (see para [0046], "In one example embodiment, the presented framework for end-user-driven business process management may be utilized beneficially to obtain from business users task-related data that may form a basic diagram of a business process--a task pattern. Task-related data may be collected via a plug-in installed with an end-user office application, such as, e.g., an e-mail client application. A plug-in, that may be termed a tracker, may be configured to detect that a certain task (e.g., termed a main task) has been commenced, and start monitoring for any events related to the task and collecting data associated with such events. For example, a tracker may detect that one or more subtasks of the main task have been delegated to certain users and collect such delegation data. The tracker may also detect that certain subtasks are being executed in parallel, e.g., by monitoring the status of subtasks indicating the percent completed values or any changes in target end task dates. The main task data collected in this manner may be then processed to construct a weakly-structured process model--a task pattern that represents ad-hoc task hierarchies associated with the main task. Thus generated task patterns may be expressed by a task delegation graphs (TDGs), as described further below." and see para [0088], "If a task has an ancestor or a descendant, the user may receive notification and may be permitted to enter back the suspended WF in the WF node (block 1030) with the reference to the ancestor/descendant of the applied TP task. The assumption is made that as the WF was generated (partially) by the referenced ancestor, the data for the WF node where the process is entered back may be elaborated and available to some extent in the ad-hoc process (TDG) and can be entered (e.g., automatically or manually), as may be required in the resumed WF.")
alerting, at the second optimum time, the user to perform the second candidate task pattern (see para [0046], [0088], showing notification and email for delegation of task where it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that such alert would be for subsequent tasks)
wherein the completion variability comprises a variability in a time elapsed while performing the task pattern (see para [0050], "FIG. 2 shows a block diagram illustrating an end-user-driven business process management system 200, according to one example embodiment. As shown in FIG. 2, the end-user-driven business process management system 200 comprises a tracker 210 that may be configured to monitor and collect events associated with ad-hoc tasks, a task pattern generator 240 to generate a task pattern based on the collected data, and a workflow model generator 250. The tracker 210 may include a monitor to monitor ad-hoc events associated with end-user task-management activities (an ad-hoc events monitor 220) and a collector to collect data associated with the ad-hoc events (an ad-hoc events collector 230). The ad-hoc events monitor 220 may comprise a number of detectors, each configured to detect certain task-related events. Example detectors include a commencement detector 232 configured to detect the commencement of a task, a delegation detector 234 configured to detect if a task has been delegated, a task status detector 235 configured to detect the status of a task (e.g., percent complete), an artifact detector 236 configured to detect artifacts associated with a task, and a task completion detector 238 configured to detect the completion of a task. As mentioned above, various ad-hoc events collected by the system 200 may be assembled into a task pattern (TP). This may be performed by the task pattern generator 240." and see para [0074])
Claims 5, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoitsev and Chishty, as applied above, and further in view of Swett et al. (US 20200334531 A1) (hereinafter Swett).
Claims 5, 13, 19:
Stoitsev and Chishty do not specifically disclose wherein the completion variability comprises a variability in a sequence of the set of tasks in the task pattern. In analogous art, Swett discloses the following limitations:
wherein the completion variability comprises a variability in a sequence of the set of tasks in the task pattern ([0173] The system 1100 receives an input 1101 that details a definition of a project together with corresponding general principles governing success or failure as it relates to the completion of the project. Based on the input 1101, a sequence of tasks, chosen based on a highest likelihood of successfully completing the project, are chosen as shown in item 1102. The sequence of tasks is chosen based on the affective history of task sequences 1104. The affective history of task sequences 1104 represents a way in which one or more task sequences are correlated together, not only with environmental data but also with a measure of success. The affective history of task sequences 1104 can, by finding similar environmental data and project details, find one or more task sequences that are likely to result in a successful completion of a given project.)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Chen with Stoitsev and Swett because including a completion variability comprises a variability in a sequence of the set of tasks in the task pattern provides another data point in training tasks to improve models for optimizing such tasks (see Swett, para [0001]-[0004]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the artificial intelligence reasoning system as taught by Swett in the Stoitsev and Chishty combination, 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.
Claims 6, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoitsev and Chishty, as applied above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20170337492 A1).
Claims 6, 14, 20:
Stoitsev and Chishty do not specifically disclose wherein the performance data of the system used in performing the candidate task pattern comprises a completion time of an exploratory task performed on the system used in performing the candidate task pattern, the exploratory task corresponding to a task in the candidate task pattern. In analogous art, Chen discloses the following limitations:
wherein the performance data of the system used in performing the candidate task pattern comprises a completion time of an exploratory task performed on the system used in performing the candidate task pattern, the exploratory task corresponding to a task in the candidate task pattern (see para [0045], “Ideally, in an exemplary embodiment, the algorithm of the workflow management tools 217 may seek to select a workflow scheduling solution, based on the availability and reliability data of the task candidates, wherein the assigned workflow process tasks are assigned task candidates that have the lowest cycle time for completion and have the highest probability of success. However, the workflow process management tools 217 may recognize that having the lowest cycle time and the highest probability of success may not always be an option. Often, the most reliable task candidates may have some of the most difficult availability to schedule. Therefore, in some embodiments, the workflow management tools 217 may identify and select a workflow scheduling solution that provides a balance between both availability and reliability of the selected task candidates. The negotiation agent 227 of the workflow management tools 217, however may continuously seek to optimize the initial workflow schedule selected in order to make adjustments that improve the cycle time and/or the probability of a task's success, wherever possible.”)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Chen with Stoitsev and Chishty because including completion time of an exploratory task enables more information that is useful for managing and making decisions related to schedules and processing tasks (see Chen, para [0002]-[0004]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the system for workflow scheduling as taught by Chen in the Stoitsev and Chishty combination, 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.
Vaidya et al. (US 2011/0246998 A1), a method of reorganizing a plurality of task for optimization of resources and execution time in an environment that includes mapping of each task to obtain qualitative and quantitative assessment of each functional elements and variables within the time frame for execution of each tasks, representation of data obtained from the mapping in terms of a matrix of dimensions N.times.N, wherein N represents total number of tasks and reorganizing the tasks in accordance with the represented data in the matrix for the execution, wherein reorganizing the tasks provides for both static and dynamic methodologies
Byrne et al. (KR 20190117812 A), a system for generating a first work sequence to build a product according to a model that involves causing the one or more robotic devices to build the product by starting to execute the first task sequence. In addition, during execution of the first task sequence, a buildability analysis is performed to determine the possibility of completing the product by executing the first task sequence
Goh et al. "A variability taxonomy to support automation decision-making for manufacturing processes", an article on a taxonomy of variability when considering the automation of manufacturing where three industrial case studies were analyzed to develop the proposed taxonomy and the results obtained from the taxonomy are discussed with a further case study to demonstrate its value in supporting automation decision-making
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUJAY KONERU whose telephone number is (571)270-3409. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM to 5 pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached on 571- 270-5396. 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.
/SUJAY KONERU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624