DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12 May 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 11-12 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 13-20 are amended.
Claims 21-22 are new.
Claims 1-10, 13-22 will be pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 13 March 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12 May 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks, regarding rejections of claims under 35 USC 101, have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding rejections of claims under 35 USC 101, set forth in arguments filed 12 May 2026, pgs. 8-12, are directed to newly amended claim limitations for which Examiner has not yet made a prima facie case for, rendering Applicant’s arguments moot.
Applicant’s remarks, regarding rejections of claims under 35 USC 103, have been fully considered.
Applicant submits that amended Claim 1 recites at least the following features not reasonably taught or suggested by the cited references (emphases added):
in response to receiving the instruction, programmatically analyzing content of the second portion to select a machine learning model from among a plurality of machine learning
models;
determining the input to the second portion by using the machine learning model to determine permitted actions to take
with respect to the second portion; and
based on the permitted actions:
retrieving, using the link, metadata of a page referenced by the link, and
based on the metadata, determining a validation action associated with the page.
Applicant submits that Claim 1 is non-obvious over the cited references. Applicant has made similar amendments to independent Claims 16 and 20.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant submits that new Claim 21 recites features at least partially similar to features recited in Claim 3 as originally filed. Although Guruswamy discloses "hosts" and "identify[ing] hosts," such "hosts" are described as either a "DNS host" or a "destination host," where the "DNS host" returns "the symbolic (e.g., numeric) network address of the destination host identified by [a] URL." This is not the same as "host capabilities of an application associated with the user interface" as recited in Claim 21 (emphasis added).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies, under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), are given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, see MPEP § 2111.01(I).
Examiner submits Guruswamy determines host capabilities of an application associated with the user interface plug in or extension (cf. Guruswamy, [Col. 4, Line 46]), by using a converter tool which analyzes captured application-layer messages to identify transports utilized by the messages, each transport represents a connection between hosts (cf. Guruswamy, [Col. 7, Lines 13-21]). Guruswamy determines whether the transport is secure by examining a Universal Resource Locator (URL) associated with the message (cf. Guruswamy, [Col. 7, Lines 59-64]) and generating additional transport using URL's included in request messages generated by the application host 106 may be provided to a DNS host 116, which may return the symbolic (e.g., numeric) network address of the destination host identified by the URL (cf. Guruswamy, [Col. 8, Lines 6-14]), similar in manner to the “host capability of the application associated with the user interface may be determined based on a host name, a contextual uniform resource locator (URL), or the like”, outlined in Specification [0014] of the claimed invention. Guruswamy determines the host capabilities of the application by identifying the secure transports between hosts for processing application-layer messages.
The rejections of Claims 1-10, 13-22 under 35 USC 103, have been maintained.
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 .
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "one or more properties of the page" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term "one or more properties of the page" has been construed to be “one or more properties of the further page”.
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 1-10, 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, abstract idea, without significantly more.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim(s) falls within any statutory
category. MPEP 2106.03:
According to the first part of the Alice analysis, in the instant case, the claims were determined
to be directed to one of the four statutory categories: an article of manufacture, a method/process (Claims 1-10, 13-15), a machine/system/product (Claims 16-22), and a composition of matter. Based on the claims being determined to be within of the four categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim(s) recites a
judicial exception.
Regarding independent claims 1, 16, 20, the claims recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG) without significantly more (Step-2A: Prong One). The applicant's claim limitations under broadest reasonable interpretation covers activities classified under mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection Ill) and the 2019 PEG. As evaluated below:
Claims 1, 16, 20:
“programmatically analyzing content of the second portion to select a machine learning model from among a plurality of machine learning models” (mental process of evaluation)
“using the selected machine learning model to determine permitted actions to take with respect to the second portion” (mental process of judgement, adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent))
“based on the metadata, determining a validation action associated with the page” (process of judgement)
If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is
reasonable to conclude that the claim(s) recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim(s) as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. As evaluated below:
“wherein the second portion is configured to receive an input”
“based on the permitted actions: retrieving, using the link, metadata of a page referenced by the link”
These recitations are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to instructions for mere data gathering or data output, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“receiving an instruction to move a component from a first portion of a user interface to a second portion of the user interface for application on the second portion of the user interface”
“wherein the second portion represents a link”
These recitations are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to instructions merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to
significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of
additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05.
First, the additional elements considered as part of the preamble and the additional elements
directed to the use of computer technology are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception
to a patentable invention to a patentable invention because they generally link the judicial exception to
the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Second, the additional elements directed to mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Third, the claims are directed to instructions merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. The courts have found these types of limitations insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Lastly, the claims directed to data gathering activity as noted above, are deemed directed to an insignificant extra-solution activity. The courts have found these types of limitations insufficient to
qualify as "significantly more", see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, when considering evidence in view of Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018), see USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum (April 2018). Examiner notes Berkheimer: Option 2 - A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d}(II} as noting the well understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element (s) (e.g., limitations directed to mere data gathering):
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
The additional limitations, as analyzed, failed to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A and provide an inventive concept in Step 2B, per the analysis above. Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole, claims 1, 16, 20 do not recite what the courts have identified as "significantly more".
Furthermore, regarding dependent claims 2-10, 13-15, which depend from claim 1, claims 17-19, 21-22, which depend from claim 16, the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) without significantly more as highlighted below in the claim limitations by evaluating the claim limitations under the Step2A and 2B:
Claims 2, 17:
Incorporates the rejections of claims 1, 16, respectively.
“wherein the instruction to move the component from the first portion of the user interface to the second portion of the user interface includes dragging the component from the first portion and dropping the component to the second portion to cause the component to be applied to the second portion of the user interface”
These recitations are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to instructions merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Limitations directed to mere instructions indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 3, 18:
Incorporates the rejections of claims 1, 16, respectively.
“determining at least one host capability of an application associated with the user interface” (mental process of judgement)
The recitation is directed to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or
merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and are considered to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Limitations directed to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer/using computer as a tool cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 4, 19:
Incorporates the rejections of claims 3, 18, respectively.
“wherein the at least one host capability of the application associated with the user interface is determined based on at least one of: a host name or a contextual uniform resource locator (URL)”
These recitations are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to instructions merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Limitations directed to mere instructions indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 5, 21:
Incorporates the rejections of claims 4, 19, respectively.
“parsing the contextual URL to extract at least one keyword” (mental process of evaluation)
“determining a function of the page associated with the application based at least on a lookup of the at least one keyword in a lookup table” (mental process of judgement)
The recitation is directed to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or
merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and are considered to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Limitations directed to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer/using computer as a tool cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 6, 22:
Incorporates the rejections of claims 1, 16, respectively.
“determining at least one of a configuration or a property of an application associated with the user interface” (mental process of judgement)
The recitation is directed to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or
merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and are considered to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Limitations directed to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer/using computer as a tool cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claim 7:
Incorporates the rejection of claim 6.
“wherein the configuration or the property of the application associated with the user interface includes at least one of: a widget or a Document Object Model (DOM) element”
These recitations are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to instructions merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Limitations directed to mere instructions indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claim 8:
Incorporates the rejection of claim 6.
“wherein a page type associated with the application is determined based at least on the configuration or the property of the application associated with the user interface” (mental process of judgement)
The recitation is directed to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or
merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and are considered to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Limitations directed to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer/using computer as a tool cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claim 9:
Incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
“determining one or more properties of a further page of an application associated with the second portion and selecting the machine learning model is based at least on the one or more properties” (mental process of judgement)
The recitation is directed to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or
merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and are considered to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Limitations directed to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer/using computer as a tool cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claim 10:
Incorporates the rejection of claim 9.
“wherein information associated with the one or more properties of the page is used to train the machine learning model”
These recitations are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to instructions merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Limitations directed to mere instructions indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claim 13:
Incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
“further comprising performing at least one action from among the permitted actions to take with respect to the second portion”
These recitations are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to instructions merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Limitations directed to mere instructions indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claim 14:
Incorporates the rejection of claim 13.
“wherein performing the at least one action includes populating data in the second portion using a key-value pair for at least one link in the second portion”
These recitations are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to instructions merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Limitations directed to mere instructions indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claim 15:
Incorporates the rejection of claim 13.
“determining at least one applicable rule for the second portion” (mental process of judgement)
The recitation is directed to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or
merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and are considered to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“validating data in the second portion based on at least one rule”
These recitations are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to instructions merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Limitations directed to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer/using computer as a tool or directed to instructions merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The dependent claims as analyzed above, do not recite limitations that integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. In addition, the claim limitations do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step-2B). Therefore, the claims do not recite any limitations, when considered individually or as a whole, that recite what have the courts have identified as "significantly more", see MPEP 2106.05; and therefore, as a whole the claims are not patent eligible. As shown above, the dependent claims do not provide any additional elements that when considered individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified. Therefore, as a whole, the dependent claims do not recite what have the courts have identified as "significantly more" than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, claims 2-10, 13-15, 17-19, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite, when claim elements are examined individually and as a whole, elements that the courts have identified as "significantly more" than the recited judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 9-10, 13, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gubin et al. (WIPO No. 2023225264, hereinafter 'Gubin'), in view of Samson et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20080141153, hereinafter 'Samson').
Regarding claim 1 and analogous claims 16, 20, Gubin teaches A method, comprising ([0122] Computer system 400 includes one or more units of memory 406, such as a main memory, which is coupled to I/O subsystem 402 for electronically digitally storing data and instructions to be executed by processor 404. Memory 406 may include volatile memory such as various forms of random-access memory (RAM) or other dynamic storage device. Memory 406 also may be used for storing temporary variables or other intermediate information during the execution of instructions to be executed by processor 404. Such instructions, when stored in non-transitory computer-readable storage media accessible to processor 404, can render computer system 400 into a special-purpose machine that is customized to perform the operations specified in the instructions.):
programmatically analyzing content of the second portion to select a machine learning model from among a plurality of machine learning models ([0077] FIG. 5B illustrates an example data flow diagram showing how data values can be programmatically connected. In an embodiment, a personalization engine 501 comprises the personalization platform 500 (FIG. 5A) in combination from among a plurality of machine learning models with one or more machine learning models and digitally stored data, such as a general suggestion relevance model that has been trained on the signals and data previously described, digitally stored user profiles and team profiles, context data, domain-based knowledge graphs that represent terms, documents, web pages, and other knowledge of a particular enterprise, team, project, or other domain, specialized ML models for new user activation, conversion RL models, and other decision data such as digitally stored rules, heuristics, model limit parameters or “guardrails,” weight values, and default values.; [0085] In some embodiments, the platform is programmed to implement downstream personalization, in which generic suggestions are first generated from machine learning models and then ranked in a personalized way.; [0086] INLINE BOOSTING. Downstream personalization can be programmed in one aspect to implement inline boosting in which relevant suggestions are boosted from an assistant panel to an inline presentation. FIG. 7 A illustrates an example graphical user interface that could be implemented in association with inline boosting. To illustrate an example embodiment, a graphical user interface 702 comprises an email composing window 704 in which a user computer 102 has entered programmatically analyzing content of the second portion draft text 706. Using the techniques that have been previously described, the checks of FIG. 1 have executed the to select a machine learning model inference stage of trained GEC ML models over the draft text and returned a suggestion set 132 that a text processing extension has rendered using underlining to highlight one or more suggestions 705 of changes to the text. Based on the scoring approach of FIG. 2, suggestion 708 to change the word “mandatory” has exceeded a threshold score and therefore qualified for emphasis.);
using the machine learning model to determine permitted actions to take with respect to the second portion ([0086] INLINE BOOSTING. Downstream personalization can be programmed in one aspect to implement inline boosting in which relevant suggestions are boosted from an assistant panel to an inline presentation. FIG. 7 A illustrates an example graphical user interface that could be implemented in association with inline boosting. To illustrate an example embodiment, a graphical user interface 702 comprises an email composing window 704 in which a user computer 102 has entered draft text 706. Using the techniques that have been previously described, the checks of FIG. 1 have executed the using the machine learning model to determine permitted actions to take with respect to the second portion inference stage of trained GEC ML models over the draft text and returned a suggestion set 132 that a text processing extension has rendered using underlining to highlight one or more suggestions 705 of changes to the text. Based on the scoring approach of FIG. 2, suggestion 708 to change the word “mandatory” has exceeded a threshold score and therefore qualified for emphasis.); and
Gubin fails to teach receiving an instruction to move a component from a first portion of a user interface to a second portion of the user interface for application on the second portion of the user interface, wherein the second portion is configured to receive an input, and wherein the second portion represents a link; based on the permitted actions: retrieving, using the link, metadata of a page referenced by the link, and based on the metadata, determining a validation action associated with the page.
Samson teaches receiving an instruction to move a component from a first portion of a user interface to a second portion of the user interface for application on the second portion of the user interface, wherein the second portion is configured to receive an input, and wherein the second portion represents a link ([0016] In one embodiment, receiving an instruction to move a component from a first portion of a user interface dropping an enterprise widget to a second portion of the user interface for application on the second portion of the user interface onto another object, of either the same or different type, creates an action. In one embodiment, dropping an enterprise widget onto a function causes an action, such as the creation of a new purchase order.; [0019] The invocation of the UI interaction is provided by the interaction with the widget, which is wherein the second portion represents a link able to interpret the interaction to the desired interface, and is enabled with necessary application programming interfaces (APIs) and/or code to provide the interaction. An enterprise widget can be a proxy for an object instance, can represent a collection of instances, can enable a specific action (e.g., send, look up, enter data, check status), can display a specific aspect of an object (e.g., KPI monitor, conversation tracker, progress tracker, status updater, item capturer), and/or can represent a container for widgets.);
based on the permitted actions: retrieving, using the link, metadata of a page referenced by the link, and based on the metadata, determining a validation action associated with the page ([0025] Widget 110 may execute in conjunction with widget runtime engine 120. Widget runtime engine 120 represents one or more logical components that provide functional and control features for widget 110.; [0031] Runtime engine 120 includes relationship metadata 140. metadata of a page referenced by the link Relationship metadata 140 can be understood as any information, in any form, which provides a description of a relationship between a widget item and a function, an interaction result or action to perform retrieving, using the link when items of particular types are dropped on targets of particular types. The based on the metadata relationship metadata can be very specific, and based on the permitted actions: indicate a particular action when a particular functionality is “dropped” onto a target of a particular type. Thus, causing the interaction may include causing runtime engine 120 or a similar component to determining a validation action associated with the page determine what action to perform. The runtime engine could then initiate the action that is based on the target type and the functionality associated with the item.).
Gubin and Samson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application processing via graphical user interfaces. In view of the teachings of Gubin, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Samson to Gubin before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to generate additional functionality to be incorporated into the end-user application (cf. Samson, [0014] Functional interactions with end-user applications are provided. An item of an end-user application can be caused to interact with a target (e.g., a widget, a folder, the desktop, etc.). Based on the target type and a functionality associated with the selected item, one or more actions can be initiated (e.g., create a standalone widget, create a relationship, execute the functionality associated with the item, etc.). A runtime of the operating environment may include relationship data that indicates what operations to perform when a particular interaction is initiated, or may have a default interaction. An item could also be selected from somewhere on the operating environment (e.g., another end-user application, an object, a folder, etc.) and caused to interact with an end-user application. The results of the interaction can generally cause an additional functionality to be incorporated into the end-user application. As used herein, the interaction can be the result of a drag-and-drop operation, a copy and paste, a menu selection, etc.).
Regarding claim 9, Gubin, as modified by Samson, teaches The method of claim 1.
Gubin teaches wherein programmatically analyzing content of the second portion to select the machine learning model includes determining one or more properties of a further page of an application associated with the second portion and selecting the machine learning model is based at least on the one or more properties ([0077] FIG. 5B illustrates an example data flow diagram showing how data values can be programmatically connected. In an embodiment, a personalization engine 501 comprises the personalization platform 500 (FIG. 5A) in combination with selecting the machine learning model one or more machine learning models and digitally stored data, such as a general suggestion relevance model that has been trained on the signals and data previously described, digitally stored user profiles and team profiles, context data, is based at least on the one or more properties domain-based knowledge graphs that represent terms, documents, web pages, and other knowledge of a particular enterprise, team, project, or other domain, specialized ML models for new user activation, conversion RL models, and other decision data such as digitally stored rules, heuristics, model limit parameters or “guardrails,” weight values, and default values.; [0085] In some embodiments, the platform is programmed to implement downstream personalization, in which generic suggestions are first generated from machine learning models and then ranked in a personalized way.; [0086] INLINE BOOSTING. Downstream personalization can be programmed in one aspect to implement inline boosting in which relevant suggestions are boosted from an assistant panel to an inline presentation. FIG. 7 A illustrates an example graphical user interface that could be implemented in association with inline boosting. To illustrate an example embodiment, a graphical user interface 702 comprises determining one or more properties of a further page of an application associated with the second portion an email composing window 704 in which a user computer 102 has entered draft text 706. Using the techniques that have been previously described, the checks of FIG. 1 have executed the inference stage of trained GEC ML models over the draft text and returned a suggestion set 132 that a text processing extension has rendered using underlining to highlight one or more suggestions 705 of changes to the text. Based on the scoring approach of FIG. 2, suggestion 708 to change the word “mandatory” has exceeded a threshold score and therefore qualified for emphasis.).
Gubin and Samson are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Gubin, as modified by Samson, teaches The method of claim 9.
Gubin teaches wherein information associated with the one or more properties of the page is used to train the machine learning model ([0077] FIG. 5B illustrates an example data flow diagram showing how data values can be programmatically connected. In an embodiment, a personalization engine 501 comprises the personalization platform 500 (FIG. 5A) in combination with one or more machine learning models and digitally stored data, such as a general suggestion relevance model that is used to train the machine learning model has been trained on the signals and data previously described, digitally stored user profiles and team profiles, context data, wherein information associated with the one or more properties of the page domain-based knowledge graphs that represent terms, documents, web pages, and other knowledge of a particular enterprise, team, project, or other domain, specialized ML models for new user activation, conversion RL models, and other decision data such as digitally stored rules, heuristics, model limit parameters or “guardrails,” weight values, and default values. Examples of training features include features relating to a previous history of the interaction of the user with an application, text-related features based on the application of computational linguistics to an input text, by parsing the text to extract features indicating formality, fluency, or other attributes, user profile data specifying a demographic, job role, or industry, organizational profile, and/or stylometric features that capture a user's style of writing such as the usage of complex words, and/or a reading ease score.).
Gubin and Samson are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Gubin, as modified by Samson, teaches The method of claim 1.
Gubin teaches further comprising performing at least one action from among the permitted actions to take with respect to the second portion ([0086] INLINE BOOSTING. Downstream personalization can be programmed in one aspect to implement inline boosting in which relevant suggestions are boosted from an assistant panel to an inline presentation. FIG. 7 A illustrates an example graphical user interface that could be implemented in association with inline boosting. To illustrate an example embodiment, a graphical user interface 702 comprises an email composing window 704 in which a user computer 102 has entered draft text 706. Using the techniques that have been previously described, the checks of FIG. 1 have executed the performing at least one action from among the permitted actions to take with respect to the second portion inference stage of trained GEC ML models over the draft text and returned a suggestion set 132 that a text processing extension has rendered using underlining to highlight one or more suggestions 705 of changes to the text. Based on the scoring approach of FIG. 2, suggestion 708 to change the word “mandatory” has exceeded a threshold score and therefore qualified for emphasis.).
Gubin and Samson are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gubin, in view of Samson, and further in view of Reardon et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20240111408, hereinafter 'Reardon').
Regarding claim 2 and analogous claim 17, Gubin, as modified by Samson, teaches The method of claim 1 and The system of claim 16, respectively.
Reardon teaches wherein the instruction to move the component from the first portion of the user interface to the second portion of the user interface includes dragging the component from the first portion and dropping the component to the second portion to cause the component to be applied to the second portion of the user interface ([0067] In some embodiments, the native DND API 224 monitors user interaction with a displayed webpage and defines a number of events related to DND operations, which fire when certain user interactions are detected. Events fired by the DND API 224 are referred to as API events herein. For example, during a DND operation, the native API 224 may fire a instruction to move the component from the first portion of the user interface to the second portion of the user interface includes dragging the component from the first portion “dragstart” event when it detects that a user has selected a “draggable” item and has commenced moving their input control across the user interface. Similarly, it may fire a “dragend” event when it detects that the user has stopped the dragging action and released the selected draggable item at a location other than a valid drop location on the user interface. After “dragstart”, the native API 224 may continue to fire “drag” events until it detects that the operation has ended or the draggable item is over a potential drop target. A “drageneter” event may be fired when the API detects that during a dragging operation a cursor has entered a potential drop target, and a “dragleave” event may be fired when the API detects that the cursor has left the potential drop target. Further still, the API may fire a and dropping the component to the second portion to cause the component to be applied to the second portion of the user interface “drop” event when the selected draggable item is dropped on a valid drop target.).
Gubin, Samson, and Reardon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application processing via graphical user interfaces. In view of the teachings of Gubin and Samson, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Reardon to Gubin before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to provide a new and improved DND library, reducing load times and also reducing browser-processing requirements when performing DND operations (cf. Reardon, [0038] To address one or more of these issues, aspects of the present disclosure provide a new and improved DND library. In particular, aspects of the present disclosure provide a DND library that is only a few kilobytes in size. Further, the library is not only smaller in size than previously known libraries, but also much simpler than previously known libraries. Because of its smaller size and simplicity, the DND library presently disclosed significantly reduces load times and also reduces browser-processing requirements when performing DND operations.).
Claims 3-5, 18-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gubin, in view of Samson, and further in view of Guruswamy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8799714, hereinafter 'Guruswamy').
Regarding claim 3 and analogous claim 18, Gubin, as modified by Samson, teaches The method of claim 1 and The system of claim 16, respectively.
Gubin, as modified by Samson, fails to teach wherein programmatically analyzing content of the second portion to select the machine learning model includes determining at least one host capability of an application associated with the user interface.
Guruswamy teaches wherein programmatically analyzing content of the second
portion to select the machine learning model includes determining at least one host capability of an application associated with the user interface ([Col. 8, Lines 6-14] In some example embodiments, the converter tool 110 may generate an additional transport to represent communication between the application host 106 and a Domain Name Service (DNS) host 116. For example, determining at least one host capability of an application associated with the user interface URL's included in request messages generated by the application host 106 may be provided to a DNS host 116, which may return the symbolic (e.g., numeric) network address of the destination host identified by the URL.; [Col. 8, Lines 19-34] At 504, the converter tool 110 may identify hosts from the captured transaction. The identified hosts may also be stored at a table of hosts, which can be a part of the processed message scenario 210. The application host 106 may be considered a first host. In some example embodiments, the DNS host 116 is represented as a second identified host. For example, the converter tool 110 may be configured to emit DNS queries to resolve the names of other hosts participating in the transaction. Additional hosts may be determined by examining the URL's of the messages in the transaction. Upon encountering a new host referenced in a message URL, the converter tool 110 may emit a DNS query to identify the name of the encountered host. Upon determining the host name, the converter tool 110 may perform a map look-up at the table of hosts to determine if the encountered host is in the table.).
Gubin, Samson, and Guruswamy are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application processing via graphical user interfaces. In view of the teachings of Gubin and Samson, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Guruswamy to Gubin before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to determine hosts taking part in the transaction as well as the transports used for the transaction (cf. Guruswamy, [Col. 2, Line 60-Col. 3, Line 5] Captured messages may be processed and converted to one or more test scenarios, for example, by a converter tool executed by a computer system. Processing transaction messages may involve extracting various information from the messages as well as making various modifications to the messages. For example, the converter tool may determine hosts taking part in the transaction as well as the transports used for the transaction. In some example embodiments, the converter tool also associates corresponding request and response messages with one another. Additionally, in some example embodiments, the converter tool filters transaction messages to remove messages that do not affect the end result of the transaction.).
Regarding claim 4 and analogous claim 19, Gubin, as modified by Samson and Guruswamy, teaches The method of claim 3 and The system of claim 18, respectively.
Guruswamy teaches wherein the at least one host capability of the application associated with the user interface is determined based on at least one of: a host name or a contextual uniform resource locator (URL) ([Col. 8, Lines 6-14] In some example embodiments, the converter tool 110 may generate an additional transport to represent communication between the application host 106 and a Domain Name Service (DNS) host 116. For example, URL's included in request messages generated by the application host 106 may be provided to a DNS host 116, which may return the host capability of the application associated with the user interface is determined based on at least one of: a host name symbolic (e.g., numeric) network address of the destination host or a contextual uniform resource locator (URL) identified by the URL.; [Col. 8, Lines 19-34] At 504, the converter tool 110 may identify hosts from the captured transaction. The identified hosts may also be stored at a table of hosts, which can be a part of the processed message scenario 210. The application host 106 may be considered a first host. In some example embodiments, the DNS host 116 is represented as a second identified host. For example, the converter tool 110 may be configured to emit DNS queries to resolve the names of other hosts participating in the transaction. Additional hosts may be determined by examining the URL's of the messages in the transaction. Upon encountering a new host referenced in a message URL, the converter tool 110 may emit a DNS query to identify the name of the encountered host. Upon determining the host name, the converter tool 110 may perform a map look-up at the table of hosts to determine if the encountered host is in the table.).
Gubin, Samson, and Guruswamy are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 5 and analogous claim 21, Gubin, as modified by Samson and Guruswamy, teaches The method of claim 4, The system of claim 19, respectively.
Guruswamy teaches wherein determining the at least one host capability of the application associated with the user interface includes: parsing the contextual (URL) to extract at least one keyword; and determining a function of the page associated with the application based at least on a lookup of the at least one keyword in a lookup table ([Col. 8, Lines 6-14] In some example embodiments, the converter tool 110 may generate an additional transport to represent communication between the application host 106 and a Domain Name Service (DNS) host 116. For example, URL's included in request messages generated by the application host 106 may be provided to a DNS host 116, which may return the symbolic (e.g., numeric) network address of the destination parsing the contextual (URL) to extract at least one keyword host identified by the URL.; [Col. 8, Lines 19-38] At 504, the converter tool 110 may identify hosts from the captured transaction. The identified hosts may also be stored at a table of hosts, which can be a part of the processed message scenario 210. The application host 106 may be considered a first host. In some example embodiments, the DNS host 116 is represented as a second identified host. For example, the converter tool 110 may be configured to emit DNS queries to resolve the names of other hosts participating in the transaction. Additional hosts may be determined by examining the URL's of the messages in the transaction. Upon encountering a new host referenced in a message URL, the converter tool 110 may emit a DNS query to identify the name of the encountered host. Upon determining the host name, the converter tool 110 may based at least on a lookup of the at least one keyword in a lookup table perform a map look-up at the table of hosts to determine if the encountered host is in the table. If the encountered host is not included in the table, the converter 100 may add it. determining a function of the page associated with the application Each transaction host may be identified using any suitable descriptors. In some example embodiments, some or all of the hosts may be identified by a name and a protocol family (e.g., IPv4, IPv6, etc.).).
Gubin, Samson, and Guruswamy are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 3.
Claims 6-7, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gubin, in view of Samson, and further in view of Silverstein et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20220405064, hereinafter ‘Silverstein').
Regarding claim 6 and analogous claim 22, Gubin, as modified by Samson, teaches The method of claim 1, The system of claim 16, respectively.
Silverstein teaches wherein programmatically analyzing content of the second portion to select the machine learning model includes determining at least one of a configuration or a property of an application associated with the user interface ([0045] The model component 150 may generate a user interface model for the thematic information or a plurality of user interface models. In some instances, the model component 150 generates the set of user interface models so that each model or a subset of models is generated for distinct portions or aspects of the thematic information of the interface, web page, website, or other interface environment.; [0032] In some embodiments, the operation 220 is performed by passing a full page or view of the interface environment to a machine learning model generated for a larger thematic environment in which the interface environment is being developed. The thematic component 110, using the machine learning model, differentiates and visually identifies each and every present element within the screen. Each element is tagged with metadata components. The determining at least one of a configuration or a property of an application associated with the user interface metadata components may include field names, coordinates of an input area (e.g., X,Y coordinates within the interface environment), element types, associated or proximate elements, and element hierarchies.).
Gubin, Samson, and Silverstein are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application processing via graphical user interfaces. In view of the teachings of Gubin and Samson, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Silverstein to Gubin before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to enable autonomous discovery of web pages, user interface widgets, and recognition of elements (cf. Silverstein, [0022] Embodiments of the present disclosure may automatically generate software or program code to increase speeds for generating user interfaces. Some embodiments of the present disclosure allow webpage and enterprise applications to be processed, labels extracted, and coordinates derived to build accurate coordinate interactions for a user interface generation wizard. Embodiments of the present disclosure enable autonomous discovery of web pages, user interface widgets, and recognition of elements to automatically generate RPA bot scripts. The RPA bot scrips use discovered web page elements and auto fills with configurable external values to generate themed user interfaces.).
Regarding claim 7, Gubin, as modified by Samson and Silverstein, teaches The method of claim 6.
Silverstein teaches wherein the configuration or the property of the application associated with the user interface includes at least one of: a widget or a Document Object Model (DOM) element ([0045] The model component 150 may generate a user interface model for the thematic information or a plurality of user interface models. In some instances, the model component 150 generates the set of user interface models so that each model or a subset of models is generated for distinct portions or aspects of the thematic information of the interface, web page, website, or other interface environment.; [0032] In some embodiments, the operation 220 is performed by passing a full page or view of the interface environment to a machine learning model generated for a larger thematic environment in which the interface environment is being developed. The thematic component 110, using the machine learning model, differentiates and visually identifies each and every present element within the screen. Each element is tagged with metadata components. The metadata components may include field names, coordinates of an input area (e.g., X,Y coordinates within the interface environment), element types, associated or proximate elements, and element hierarchies.; [0039] The components may identify the thematic elements of Product A and train a model based on the thematic elements and user interface elements within Product A. The components may automatically parse HTML and or a Document Object Model (DOM) element DOM object model elements to identify and understand elements of Product A.).
Gubin, Samson, and Silverstein are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 6.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gubin, in view of Samson, Silverstein, and further in view of Shenfield et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20060200748, hereinafter 'Shenfield').
Regarding claim 8, Gubin, as modified by Samson and Silverstein, teaches The method of claim 6.
Gubin, as modified by Samson and Silverstein, fails to teach wherein a page type associated with the application is determined based at least on the configuration or the property of the application associated with the user interface.
Shenfield teaches wherein a page type associated with the application is determined based at least on the configuration or the property of the application associated with the user interface ([0057] The wherein a page type associated with the application is determined based at least on the configuration or the property of the application associated with the user interface page analyzer module 110 assembles the page metadata from the input application 107 from page analysis and/or from source code. For the source code example, the module 110 parses each presentation page/screen (i.e. display output to a user interface of a client computer) from the source code and then collects the metadata for each presentation page. The module 110 includes the characteristics of navigation and other user event links, presentation styles/format, page type and data dependencies for each set of page metadata corresponding to the respective pages of the input application 107. For the page analysis example, the module 110 validates the presented web page displayed on the user interface 502 (see FIG. 5) of the user computer 14, analyzes the page type, retrieves the navigation and any other user event links, determines the page styles and formats, and notes the data dependencies. The module 110 then builds the representative metadata for each presentation page of the input application 107. The page metadata for each presentation page of the input application is then made available to the conversion module 113. It is recognised that the module 110 could also be coupled to a comparison module 600 (see FIG. 6) for determining the scale of the pages of the application 107 as compared to the best suited scale of the presentation content (of the pages) for the UI 202 of the device.).
Gubin, Samson, Silverstein, and Shenfield are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application processing via graphical user interfaces. In view of the teachings of Gubin, Samson, and Silverstein, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Shenfield to Gubin before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to provide a conversion capability to transform page-based applications to component based applications including workflow to obviate or mitigate at least some of the presented disadvantages (cf. Shenfield, [0003] There is a need for application programs, other than page-based applications, that can be run on client devices having a wide variety of runtime environments, as well as having a reduced consumption of device resources.; [0004] The systems and methods disclosed herein provide a conversion capability to transform page-based applications to component based applications including workflow to obviate or mitigate at least some of the above presented disadvantages.).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gubin, in view of Samson, and further in view of Parees et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20090083337, hereinafter 'Parees').
Regarding claim 14, Gubin, as modified by Samson, teaches The method of claim 13.
Gubin, as modified by Samson, fails to teach wherein performing the at least one action includes populating data in the second portion using a key-value pair for at least one link in the second portion.
Parees teaches wherein performing the at least one action includes populating data in the second portion using a key-value pair for at least one link in the second portion ([0034] Referring to FIG. 3, in conjunction with FIGS. 1-2, in step 301, external data source 104 (e.g., online order application) modifies or creates a new row in source table 102. For example, external data source 104 may populate a row in source table 102 to include the product purchased by a buyer, the purchase price, the buyer's address, the buyer's credit card, etc. The row populated with data by external data source 104 may be associated with a process identification referred to herein as a "primary key value." That is, each row in source table 102 may be associated with a unique primary key value. For example, row #1 in source table 102 may be associated with primary key #1.).
Gubin, Samson, and Parees are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application processing via graphical user interfaces. In view of the teachings of Gubin and Samson, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Parees to Gubin before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to synchronize the relational source and target tables in an efficient manner while minimizing the contention at the source table (cf. Parees, [0003] The present invention relates to relational databases, and more particularly to performing synchronization between the relational source and target tables in an efficient manner using an application that is platform agnostic while minimizing the contention at the source table.; [0021] The application can then perform a subsequent read operation on the source table during the next data copy cycle to obtain the updated data as discussed above. In this manner, a platform agnostic application may be able to synchronize the relational source and target tables in an efficient manner while minimizing the contention at the source table.).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gubin, in view of Samson, and further in view of Gogineni et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20190179934, hereinafter 'Gogineni').
Regarding claim 15, Gubin, as modified by Samson, teaches The method of claim 13.
Gubin, as modified by Samson, fails to teach wherein performing the at least one action includes validating data including by: determining at least one applicable rule for the second portion; and validating data in the second portion based on at least one rule.
Gogineni teaches wherein performing the at least one action includes validating data including by: determining at least one applicable rule for the second portion; and validating data in the second portion based on at least one rule ([0040] In some example embodiments, the first client 120A and/or the second client 120B may send, to the structured data validation engine 110, one or more electronic documents including structured data for validation. The structured data may be in the form of, for example, XML documents, JSON documents, and/or the like. In response to receiving the one or more electronic documents, the structured data validation engine 110 may determining at least one applicable rule for the second portion identify an applicable validation rule set and retrieve, by at least querying the database 115, one or more validation rules included in the applicable validation rule set. The structured data validation engine 110 may further validating data in the second portion based on at least one rule validate the structured data included in the electronic documents by at least applying the validation rules retrieved from the database 115. To further illustrate, FIG. 3C depicts a user interface 370 for validating structured data, in accordance with some example embodiments. In some example embodiments, the user interface 340 may be displayed by the first browser 125A at the first client 120A and/or the second browser 125B at the second client 120B.).
Gubin, Samson, and Gogineni are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application processing via graphical user interfaces. In view of the teachings of Gubin and Samson, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Gogineni to Gubin before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to validate structured data from a client (cf. Gogineni, [0021] In some example embodiments, the validation of structured data may be offloaded to be performed by a cloud based validation engine. The cloud based validation engine may be a multitenant application capable of validating structured data originating from multiple clients. Each client may create one or more custom validation rules, which may be stored at a database coupled with the cloud based validation engine. To validate structured data from a client, the cloud based validation engine may dynamically identify, based on the structured data, a set of applicable validation rules that includes custom validation rules and/or default validation rules provided by the cloud based validation engine. The cloud based validation engine may query the database to retrieve validation rules included in the set of application validation rules. The cloud based validation engine may further apply the set of applicable validation rules in order to validate the structured data from the client.).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGGIE MAIDO whose telephone number is (703) 756-1953. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 6am - 4pm.
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, Michael Huntley can be reached on (303) 297-4307. 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.
/MM/Examiner, Art Unit 2129
/MICHAEL J HUNTLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2129
Prosecution Insights