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 .
This office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 10 March 2026.
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended.
All objections and rejections as presented from the previous office actions have been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendments to the abstract and claims.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 10, and 20 are independent claims.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/10/26 has been entered.
Specification
The amendment to the abstract filed on 3/10/26 has been accepted and entered.
Drawings
The drawings remain objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 300, 504b, 504c, 506b, 506c, 506d, 506e, 506f, 506g, 506h, 506i, 506j, 508b, 508c, 508d, 508e, 508f, 508g, 508h, 508i. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "404" and "406" have both been used to designate a GUI (FIG 4 discloses 404 and 406 pointing to the same box); reference characters "408”, “408a" and "412" have both been used to designate a object selection panes (FIG 4 discloses 408, 408a, and 412 pointing to the same users box); reference characters "410”, “410a" and "414" have both been used to designate a quality report panes (FIG 4 discloses 410, 410a, and 414 pointing to the same report 1 box); reference characters "404" and "502" have both been used to designate a GUI (FIG 5 discloses 404 and 502 pointing to the same box); Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Note: The Examiner respectfully states that’s the size of FIGs 2, 4, and 5 of the most recent replacement drawings (filed/entered on 10/21/25) is half the size of original FIGs 2, 4, and 5 which may make some of the text difficult to read at times. It is unclear if the size change of FIGs 2, 4, and 5 was intentional or accidental.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the element/limitation “…generation of the quality report” in line(s) 7 and “generation of quality report” in line(s) 17. However, Claim 1 already introduced the elements/term(s) “a quality report to be generated” in line(s) 6-7. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) “…generation of the quality report” in line(s) 7 and “generation of quality report” in line(s) 17 should depend on “quality report to be generated” of line(s) 6-7 or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner will limitation/element(s) of claim 1 as to “…a workflow associated with the generation of the quality report,…” (line(s) 7) and “one or more workflow stages for the generation of quality report” (line(s) 17).
Claim 1 recites the element " the quality report workflow configuration data" in the generate limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 1 as “generate quality report workflow configuration data…”
Claim 1 recites the element/limitation “…each quality report pane of the one or more quality report panes” in the generate limitation. However, Claim 1 already introduced the elements/term(s) “each quality report pane of the one or more quality report panes” in the present limitation. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) “…each quality report pane of the one or more quality report panes” in the generate limitation should depend on “each quality report pane of the one or more quality report panes” in the present limitation or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner will limitation/element(s) of claim 1 as to “…the each quality report pane of the one or more quality report pane based on the application,…” in the generate limitation.
Claim 1 recites the element/limitation “…the quality report pane” (singular) in the generate limitation. However, Claim 1 already introduced the elements/term(s) “one or more quality report panes” (singular or plural) in the present limitations. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) “…the quality report pane” in the generate limitation should depend on “one or more quality report panes” in the present limitation or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner will limitation/element(s) of claim 1 as to “…on the selected arrangement of graphical elements within the one or more quality report panes,…” in the generate limitation.
Claim 1 recites the element/limitation “…parse the arrangement of the graphical elements…” in the generate limitation. However, Claim 1 already introduced the elements/term(s) “the selected arrangement of the graphical elements” in the receive limitation and “the defined one or more arrangements of graphical elements” in the apply limitation. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) “…the arrangement of the graphical elements” in the generate limitation should depend on “the selected arrangement of the graphical elements” in the receive limitation, “the defined one or more arrangements of the graphical elements” in the apply limitation, or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner will limitation/element(s) of claim 1 as to “…parse the selected arrangement of the graphical elements…” in the generate limitation.
Claim 1 recites the element/limitation “…each quality report pane of the one or more quality report panes” in the last limitation. However, Claim 1 already introduced the elements/term(s) “each quality report pane of the one or more quality report panes” in the present limitation. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) “…each quality report pane of the one or more quality report panes” in the last limitation should depend on “each quality report pane of the one or more quality report panes” in the present limitation or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner will limitation/element(s) of claim 1 as to “…the each quality report pane of the one or more quality report pane is generated based …” in the last limitation.
Claim 1 recites the element/limitation “…the quality report pane” (singular) in the last limitation. However, Claim 1 already introduced the elements/term(s) “one or more quality report panes” (singular or plural) in the present limitation. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) “…the quality report pane” in the last limitation should depend on “one or more quality report panes” in the present limitation or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner will limitation/element(s) of claim 1 as to “…on the selected arrangement of graphical elements within the one or more ,… the quality report workflow configuration data corresponding to the one or more quality report pane” in the last limitation.
Claims 11 and 20 recites all the similar issues as in Claim 1 land are rejected under similar rationale as explained above.
Claim 2 recites the element " the graphical elements " in the line(s) 1 However, Claim 1 already introduced the elements/term(s) “graphical elements” in “the selected arrangement of the graphical elements” in the receive limitation and ) “graphical elements” in “the defined one or more arrangements of graphical elements” in the apply limitation. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) “…the graphical elements” of claim 2 should depend on “the selected arrangement of the graphical elements” in the receive limitation of claim 1, “the defined one or more arrangements of the graphical elements” in the apply limitation of claim 1, or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner will limitation/element(s) of claim 2 as to “…wherein the graphical elements of the selected arrangement of graphical elements comprise”.
Claim 2 recites the element " the quality reports " in the line(s) 2-3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 2 as “represent objects associated with the generation of the quality report…” and “data sources used to generate the quality report”
Claim 12 recites all the similar issues as in Claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale as explained above.
Claim 4 recites the element/limitation “…each arrangement…” in the line 3. However, Claim 4 already introduced “definition of one or more arrangements…” and Claim 1 already introduced the elements/term(s) “the selected arrangement of the graphical elements” in the receive limitation and “the defined one or more arrangements of the graphical elements” in the apply limitation. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) “…each arrangement” of claim 4 should depend on “definition of one or more arrangements…” of claim 4, “the selected arrangement of the graphical elements” in the receive limitation of claim 1, “the defined one or more arrangements of the graphical elements” in the apply limitation of claim 1or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner will limitation/element(s) of claim 4 as to “…each arrangement of the one or more arrangements between the graphical elements of the particular types…”.
Claim 4 recites the element/limitation “…the arrangement” in the line 4. However, Claim 4 already introduced “each arrangement associated with a quality report…” and Claim 1 already introduced the elements/term(s) “the selected arrangement of the graphical elements” in the receive limitation and “the defined one or more arrangements of the graphical elements” in the apply limitation. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) “…the arrangement” of claim 4 should depend on “each arrangement associated with a quality report…” of claim 4, “the selected arrangement of the graphical elements” in the receive limitation of claim 1, “the defined one or more arrangements of the graphical elements” in the apply limitation of claim 1or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner will limitation/element(s) of claim 4 as to “…with a quality report generation workflow stage represented by the selected arrangement”.
Claim 14 recites all the similar issues as in Claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale as explained above.
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-18, and 20 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macrae et al (US5826237, 1998) in further view of Mikheev (US20150160809, 2015)
As per independent claim 1, Macrae et al discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory comprising program code stored thereon, wherein the at least one non-transitory memory and the program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to at least: (Col 5, ll 43-60: medium, memory, and processor)
present a workflow configuration interface comprising one or more quality report panes, wherein each quality report pane of the one or more quality report panes corresponds to a quality report to be generated and to a workflow associated with generation of the quality report wherein the one or more quality report panes are simultaneously displayed within the workflow configuration interface; (FIG 1, 8-10, 16, 43; Col 8, ll 24-50: Discloses creating a treatment workflow interface that has at least one “pane”/interval; FIG 1, 16, 43 clearly show one or more one or more quality report panes being displayed at once within the workflow configuration interface)
receive, via the workflow configuration interface, input indicative of selected arrangements of graphical elements within the one or more quality report panes; and (Col 7, ll. 20-26; Col. 8, ll. 38-42; Col 8, ll 52- Col 9, ll. 10; treatment workflow interface comprises graphical elements/nodes that were selected and placed within the template/intervals. User can position/separate the nodes by dragging/clicking)
apply predetermined graphical element arrangement parsing criteria to the selected arrangements of graphical elements… one or more arrangements of graphical elements defined by the predetermined graphical element arrangement parsing criteria, wherein each of the defined one or more arrangements of graphical elements correspond to one or more workflow stages for generation of quality report; generate the quality report workflow configuration data corresponding to each quality report pane of the one or more quality report panes based on the application on predetermined graphical element arrangement parsing criteria on the selected arrangement of graphical elements within the quality report pane, wherein the predetermined graphical element arrangement parsing criteria are configured to parse the arrangement of the graphical elements as the one or more workflow stages associated with the generation of the quality report (FIG 1, 16, 10; Col 6, ll. 9-15; Col 7, lines 53-55; Col 12, ll. 26-34: The selection and adding of the graphical elements into the template and positioned/arranged in a particular order represents a configuration of a medical healthcare treatment plan. Using the graphical elements, nodes are positioned in the chronological order in which they are to be carried out or executed. A user defines each node and connects the nodes. (form of one or more arrangements of graphical elements defined by the predetermined graphical element arrangement parsing criteria applied) Therefore, the configuration of how the elements are placed results in the treatment plan for the user. In other words, the medical healthcare treatment plan having multiple stages wherein each node is viewed as an individual stage/step of the plan. Furthermore, Macrae discloses the nodes are the building blocks on the template (a form of stages). The template has a start stage and an end/exit stage. In addition, the template has Order, Results, Flow Control nodes/stages. Order nodes generalized orders placed during the course of a treatment defines a list of generalized orders or healthcare treatment related activities "order items" that are carried out at a given step in the template. (Col 7, ll. 15-36) For example, an order node contains the physician's orders, such as lab tests, nursing procedures, x-rays, prescriptions, and other kinds of treatments or actions. (Col 8, ll 50-56) Result node shows the status of the orders in the corresponding Order node which result node contain order status and result values. (Col 7, ll. 37-42) Finally, flow control node(s) contain rules that govern the branching among nodes in the template such that the rules select a branch at a decision point in a template or plan, and estimates of the likelihood of branching down given paths. These nodes suggest the next step to the healthcare provider based on the rules and the results entered in Result nodes. (Col 7, ll. 43-50) As stated, the nodes are positioned in the chronological order in which they are to be carried out or executed. Col 6 discloses a process flow that encounters each node and executes/carries out each node. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that in order to identify which node is which type and how to properly carry out the data associated with each node, then each node to be individually parsed to identify the type of node and how to carry out each node. Col 8, ll. 4-22/FIG. 6 discloses a workflow of nodes that graphically presents a medical healthcare template for treating a sore throat condition in a Flow Chart view. This shows the process of going through the different nodes within the template and identifying (form of parsing) each of the nodes. Since each node is viewed as stage and identifying is a form of parsing, then Macrae discloses parsing an individual stage each time a node is identified. Furthermore, one of a skilled artisan would have realized that the selection and adding graphical elements within Macrae is a form of a user providing inputs to the computer of an intended result wherein the provided inputs are commands that received by the computer in which the computer is programmed to perform the functionality of the commands according to the input to generate the indented result.. )
wherein the quality report corresponding to each quality report pane of the one or more quality report panes is generated based at least in part on the quality report workflow configuration data corresponding to the quality report pane. (Col 7, ll. 20-26; Col. 8, ll. 38-42; Col 8, ll 52- Col 9, ll. 10; treatment workflow interface comprises graphical elements/nodes that were selected and placed within the template/intervals. As explained, the nodes are positioned in the chronological order in which they are to be carried out or executed. Each interval can include graphical/elements separated from another interval. Thus, each interval within the template can have its own configuration resulting in the precise treatment plan of care for the user creating a report.)
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose apply predetermined graphical element arrangement parsing criteria to the selected arrangements of graphical elements to determine whether the selected arrangements of graphical elements correspond to one or more arrangements of graphical elements defined by the predetermined graphical element arrangement parsing criteria, wherein each of the defined one or more arrangements of graphical elements correspond to one or more workflow stages for generation of quality report. However, Mikheev discloses the visualization of a workflow comprising elements viewed as blocks wherein the elements/blocks have connections. Furthermore, Mikheev discloses applying predetermined grouping criteria to the blocks/workflow that result in defining one or more collapsable groups within a collection of the elements/blocks. (e.g. 0008, 0131) Applying the grouping criteria would include determining if the arrangement of elements/blocks are in collapsable groups such that one of a skilled artisan would have realized that the elements/blocks would be placed in collapsable groups in response if it was determined that they were not previously in these particular groups. In addition, these collapsable grouping of elements correspond to at least a stage of the workflow. (0003, each stage is a task. FIG 4-5, 0051-0052: discloses a task is a particular grouping of elements.) Therefore, Mikheev discloses the arrangement of blocks/tasks correspond to one or more stages of a workflow. Furthermore, applying the grouping criteria to workflow results in generating “quality report workflow configuration data” since is based on the group criteria on the graphical elements of the workflow since the elements are grouped into collapsable groups.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Mikheev since it would have provided scientific workflow editors with improved visualization and for improving the usability of scientific workflows by developers. (0022)
As per dependent claim 2, Macrae et al discloses wherein the graphical elements comprise object graphical elements that represent objects associated with the generation of the quality reports, including particular users, particular reports to be generated, quality report section types, and/or data sources used to generate the quality reports (Col 9, ll. 53-59: The Order node Or1 contains the physician's orders, such as lab tests, nursing procedures, x-rays, prescriptions, and other kinds of treatments or actions These generalized orders may be taken from a library and placed in Order node Or1. The Order node Or1 groups all of the orders for a given step in the template. Discloses a graphical element order associated with a data source) and connector graphical elements representing relationships between objects represented by the object graphical elements. (Col 12 ll. 26-28: Connector element)
As per dependent claim 3, Macrae et al discloses receiving the input indicative of the selected arrangements of graphical elements within the one or more quality report panes comprises detecting drag-and-drop operations via the workflow configuration interface with respect to graphical elements displayed within the workflow configuration interface. (Col 9, ll 1-10: drag & drop operation)
As per dependent claim 4, Macrae et al discloses wherein the predetermined graphical element arrangement parsing criteria comprises a definition of one or more arrangements between graphical elements of particular types, each arrangement associated with a quality report generation workflow stage represented by the arrangement. (FIG 1, 16, 10; Col 6, ll, 9-15; Col 7, lines 53-55; Col 12, ll. 26-34: The selection and adding of the graphical elements into the template and positioned/arranged in a particular order represents a configuration of a medical healthcare treatment plan. Using the graphical elements, nodes are positioned in the chronological order in which they are to be carried out or executed.) In addition, see Mikheev (FIG 4-5; 0022, 0032, 0045, 0051-0052)
As per dependent claim 5, Macrae et al discloses cause generation, transmission, and/or display of status alerts based at least in part on the quality report workflow configuration data. (Col 25, ll. 45-46: error messages are displayed if configuration data has issues (see Col 25, ll. 8-44))
As per dependent claim 6, Macrae et al discloses provide the quality report workflow configuration data to a quality report generation system, which is configured to perform one or more quality report generation operations based at least in part on the quality report workflow configuration data. (Col 6, ll. 1-9: saving the template comprising the configuration data. Saving the template is a form of finalizing the generation of the template)
As per dependent claim 7, Macrae et al discloses generate quality report generation status data based at least in part on performance of the one or more quality report generation operations. (FIG 31-32: Discloses when a saved template is assigned to a particular patient or available, a form of a status data being generated)
As per dependent claim 8, Macrae et al discloses present a workflow status tracking interface for displaying the quality report generation status data generated by the quality report generation system (FIG 31-32: visually shows if the selected template is available for assigning or assigned to that patent)
As per independent claims 11 and 20, Claims 11 and 20 recite similar limitations as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Macrae discloses a medium (Col 5, ll 43-60)
As per dependent claims 12-18, Claims 12-18 recite similar limitations as in Claim 1-8 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macrae et al in further view of Mikheev in further view of Zothner (US6751657, 2004)
As per dependent claim 9, the cited art fails to specifically disclose cause generation, transmission, and/or display of status alerts based at least in part on the quality report generation status data generated by the quality report generation system. However, Zother discloses displaying status updates (alerts) of templates when assigned to users. (FIG 8A; Col 22, ll. 23-24)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of McCutchan et al since it would have provided improved approaches for implementing business rules to effect notifications and a highly desirable approach for generating notifications that are independent of the system processes. (Col 2, ll. 55-57, 65-68)
As per dependent claim 19, Claim 19 recites similar limitations as in claim 9 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macrae et al in further view of Mikheev in further view of McCutchan et al (US20190164635, 2019)
As per dependent claim 10, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the quality report corresponding to each quality report pane of the one or more quality report panes is associated with a pharmaceutical research, manufacturing, and/or distribution process, and the predetermined graphical element arrangement parsing criteria is configured specifically with respect to laboratory, production line, and/or material handling operations associated with the pharmaceutical research, manufacturing, and/or distribution process. However, McCutchan et al discloses a workflow comprises a form of pane comprising the order/steps for the making/manufacturing and distribution of a medical compound. (FIG 15-16; 0050,0109-0110 For example, a workflow for compounding a pharmaceutical to be delivered in an IV bag. The finish workflow discloses the precise order for the compounding and delivery/distribution of the compound. FIG 16 discloses graphical elements arranged in a particular order which defines the order of steps for the compounding a pharmaceutical to be delivered. (0113, 0119) In other words, the arrangement is configured with production of the compound and the material handling of the compound.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of McCutchan et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of providing the ability for the user for the customizing and a greater efficient workflow generation in regards to designing more appropriate protocols for compounding specific drugs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-11, in regards to the objection to the drawings, Applicant requests reconsideration of the issues disclosed in the objection to the drawings in response to the filing of the replacement sheets with the filing of the RCE. However, the Examiner disagrees.
The Examiner respectfully states no replacements drawings were filed with the RCE on 3/10/26. Since no replacement drawings were filed, then none of the issues recited in the objection to the drawings (see “Drawings” section above) have been overcome. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the objection to the drawings remain.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection(s) since the new ground(s) of rejection(s) was necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
Conclusion
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights