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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 7, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 23, 29, 32 - 33 and 38 - 39 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1 – 22, 24 – 25 and 28 were cancelled.
Claims 23 - 24, 26 - 27 and 29 - 39 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding to Applicant's arguments for Double-Patenting Rejection: Applicant did not significantly amend the claims and/or did not file an Electronic-Terminal Disclosure or e-td to obviate or overcome the Obviousness-type Double Patenting (ODP) rejection, Thus, the ODP will be maintained. As for Applicant arguments in pp. 7 – 8 from Remarks, regarding the three newly added limitation steps not being taught by the reference applications, this is unpersuasive. Firstly, all arguments regarding the ‘689 application are moot since this particular rejection was withdrawn due to its abandonment. Secondly, because the Applicant is concentrating their arguments in what the other references teaches instead of focusing on the actual claim language which do not include the three features (e.g. the steps for “searching” item information, “displaying” document access information and “displaying” item information in different display areas per status (i.e. in unfinished/finished status) as alleged) that are allegedly not actually claimed in the amended claim 23 or in any other claim. Thirdly, the actual amendments do not further distinguish the claimed invention reflected in the instant claims from the referenced claims and for the benefit of reducing “context switching between document lists and task lists” and for the new features which are clearly an obvious derivation of the main concept of displaying tasks and their status in a page in different areas. Thus, the cited prior art in the DP rejection section was maintained and updated. Finally, Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) as these arguments amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the specific and actual language of the claims as amended, patentably distinguishes them from the reference.
Regarding to Applicant's arguments against the 101 rejection of pending claims on pages 8 – 10: Applicant’s arguments directed to the 101 analysis were considered. However, these arguments are not persuasive and the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
For Step 2A-Prong 2 and Step 2B starting in p. 8: The Applicant alleges that claim 23 integrates the judicial exception identified, into a practical application and further alleges that the practical application is integrated in the claim by “(1) searching for tasks embedded within specific document structures (text, tables, or cells) and (2) automatically presenting these tasks on a specific "associated page" used for document access.” wherein the improvement of the computer functionality is reflected as avoiding “consumption of computing resources caused by user operations" (such as manual searching and redundant page turning)” by managing and displaying “inter-related data” However, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive and respectfully disagrees. Because such recited functions in the claims’ steps are further describing the end result of displaying/organizing tasks without providing details on how this alleged “improvement” to the computer functioning and/or to the existing technology of document/task management and display systems is achieved and these claim steps are limited to computer environments to conveniently handle information items (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Further, the claim limitations invoked the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea that can still be done mentally and manually with the aid of a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(f)). Thus, the alleged improvement for the computer functionality is not sufficient because “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2); TLC communications).
Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains 35 USC § 101 rejection for these pending claims.
Regarding to Applicant's arguments of rejection under 35 USC § 102 and § 103 for the pending claims on pages 9 – 13: Applicant’s arguments regarding these amended limitation steps in the pending claims are not persuasive. Firstly, because the Applicant is arguments about the step of “searching” for the item information of the target user…” are still taught by Zaveri due to broader language the claim language discloses which still satisfies the function of searching item data by querying or retrieving the server for the related files (see at least ¶0201 and ¶0100; Zaveri). As for the first and second display areas from Zaveri’s dashboard, this is unpersuasive since the Applicant is focusing on the prior art teachings instead of their own claim language to further discuss how this language is distinguishable. Finally, arguments against unclaimed features of “parsing internal recorded content”, “aggregating activity related to a single document” and “pulling task data from a plurality of underlying documents” in pp. 12 – 13 from Remarks are moot since these were not actually claimed in this exact manner and the established broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the actual claim language is maintained herein. Please, refer to the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 section for further details. For these reasons and the ones stated above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains 35 USC § 103 rejection for these pending claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
At least claims 23 and 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 2 and 21 of Co-pending Application No. 18/288,074 (reference application referred as ‘074 hereafter). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the claims are considered to be obvious as set forth below:
Instant claims
Co-pending or reference claims
(18/288,074)
Claims 23 and 38: A method for displaying information, comprising: (claim 23)
acquiring item information of a target user from at least one document, wherein the item information of the target user comprises an item for which the target user is a creator and/or executor, the item is a task; and
displaying the acquired item information on an associated page of a current page of the document or in a preset area on a current page;
[…] Refer to next row column
Claim 1: An information processing method, comprising:
acquiring at least one piece of first task information in response to a first operation event on a first control or a second control in the interface; and
creating a first content page based on content information and type information of the first task information;
wherein the first content page is configured to carry association information of the first task information; and
the type information comprises first type information and/or second type information, and the second type information has an associated relationship with the first type information.
(Claim 23 cont.): displaying the acquired item information on an associated page of a current page of the document or in a preset area on a current page.
wherein the associated page comprises a page for displaying document access information of the target user,
displaying one or more document access information on the page for displaying the document access information of the target user, wherein the document access information of the target user is used to indicate the document and display it in response to a user's trigger operation;
wherein the displaying the acquired item information on an associated page of a current page of the document or in a preset area on a current page comprises: displaying item information in a first state in a first display area, displaying item information in a second state in a second display area, on the page for displaying the document access information of the target user; the first state is unfinished state, and the second state is finished state.
Claim 2: The method of claim 2, wherein, in response to that the type information of the first task information comprises the first type information and the second type information, displaying content information corresponding to the first type information in a first sub-region of the content block, and displaying content information corresponding to the second type information in a second sub-region of the content block.
searching for the item information of the target user from item information recorded in multiple documents to be searched and acquiring the item information of the target user found from the search,
wherein the document to be searched comprises at least one of a text document and a table document, and the item information recorded in the document to be searched comprises at least one of item information recorded in text of the text document, item information recorded in a table inserted in the text document, and item information recorded in a cell of the table document.
Claim 21: The method of claim 12, wherein, displaying a search control in the second sub-interface, in response to search content input in the search control, searching the search content in a name of a document label in the second sub- interface and/or document content of a document associated with the document label of the second sub-interface and displaying a search result.
Consequently, for instant claims 23 and 38 are covered by reference claims 1 – 2 and 21 of ‘074 application. Thus, these instant claims are obvious by the app reference claims 1 – 2 and 21 because both applicant’s pending application and the reference app cover every feature claim in which the instant claims are broadly recited and encompass the same disclosed technology including the display of “document access information of the target user” which is equivalent to the “displaying content information corresponding to the first type information” and the “second type information” as well as the “display information” in the “first and second states” directed to displaying the “first and second task” in the “first sub-region of the content block” and “a second sub-region of the content block”. Moreover, both the instant claims and the reference claims share similar invention titles which are directed to a method and a system that generally identify and display item information to a target or assigned user in order to providing “users to view their own item information, so that the user can deal with an item in time, thereby improving the efficiency of the user in acquiring information and dealing with items” (see ¶0008 from instant specs). In other words, as the reference system claimed discloses, a system for information processing to “report the progress of the task or to summarize the task” during “the performance of a task” (see ¶0003 from reference specs). Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), this invention scope in the instant claims 23 and 38 are covered by the independent reference claims 1 – 2 and 21 from ‘074 application (see MPEP 804 (II)(B)(2) for more details).
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 23, 26 - 27 and 29 - 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of this claimed invention recited in the claims begins in view of independent claim 23, the most representative claim of the independent claims set 38 and 39, as follows:
At Step 1: Claims 23, 26 – 27 and 29 – 37 falls under statutory category of a process, while claims 38 and 39 are directed to a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively.
At, Step 2A Prong 1: the abstract idea is defined by the elements (e.g. steps) of claim 23 (representative of claim 38 and claim 39):
acquiring item information of a target user from at least one document, wherein the item information of the target user comprises an item for which the target user is a creator and/or executor the item is a task; and
displaying the acquired item information on an associated page of a current page of the document or in a preset area on a current page;
wherein the associated page comprises a page for displaying document access information of the target user,
displaying one or more document access information on the page for displaying the document access information of the target user, wherein the document access information of the target user is used to indicate the document and display it in response to a user's trigger operation;
wherein the displaying the acquired item information on an associated page of a current page of the document or in a preset area on a current page comprises: displaying item information in a first state in a first display area, displaying item information in a second state in a second display area, on the page for displaying the document access information of the target user; the first state is unfinished state, and the second state is finished state
searching for the item information of the target user from item information recorded in multiple documents to be searched and acquiring the item information of the target user found from the search,
wherein the document to be searched comprises at least one of a text document and a table document, and the item information recorded in the document to be searched comprises at least one of item information recorded in text of the text document, item information recorded in a table inserted in the text document, and item information recorded in a cell of the table document.
Generally, these limitations describe a method and a system for identifying and categorizing item information to display the item information in a page of a document or in a preset area of the page. As disclosed in the specification in ¶0009, this invention allows that “item information scattered in various documents can be automatically collected, reducing the time spent by the user on sorting out the item information” and reflects the convenience for “users to view their own item information, so that the user can deal with an item in time, thereby improving the efficiency of the user in acquiring information and dealing with items.” However, the abstract idea(s) of mental process (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) is recited in claim 23. Specifically, the abstract idea is recited in the steps for “acquiring item information” from a document that is from a “target user” or creator to “display” this information on an “associated page” of the document or in an area on the page including the display of multiple document access information to further “search” and “acquire” item information from the multiple documents which can clearly encompass concepts performed in the human mind or with a pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Also, these steps can either be done with the help of physical aid such as pen and paper or can be performed by humans without or with the assistance (e.g. tool) a computer. Thus, the steps does not negate and further still reads in the mental nature of the limitation(s), when obtaining such information, as well as the concept is merely claimed to be performed on a generic computer and is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept of “displaying the acquired item information on an associated page of a current page of the document or in a preset area on a current page” and the display of multiple document access information for the user’s convenient view and management of their information items (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B & C)).
Step 2A Prong 2: For independent claims 23 38 and 39, This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Because the claims steps and their additional feature element(s) of at least one processor and at least one memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor (from claim 38), individually and in combination, merely is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). These element features including the computer and are recited at a high level of generality and are performed generally to apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how these steps are performed distinctively from generic computer components and without having each function to generally “apply it” to a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As for the steps of “acquiring item information” and “displaying the acquired item information” (including the displaying steps for the first and second states) in all claims are really nothing more than links to computer for implementing the use of ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components (refer to MPEP 2106.05 f (2)).
Thus, these limitations are also “merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Because the user’s information acquirement and display are limited to computer environments to conveniently handle information items. Therefore, this is indicative of the fact that the claim set has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore, the claims are found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
Step 2B: For independent claims 23, 38 and 39, these claims do not provide an inventive concept. The recited additional elements of the claim(s) are the following: at least one processor and at least one memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor (from claim 38). These additional elements are not sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. Meaning, that there are no additional element(s) claimed in the dependent claims that could be significantly more than the judicial exception, but rather, further recites the abstract idea. As indicated in Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element(s) in the claims are merely, using a generic computer device or computing technologies and/or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea that does not constitute a practical application and only amounts to a mere instruction to practice the invention. Thus, these elements do not render the claims as being eligible (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h)). This is because the claimed invention must improve “upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art” (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable and re-evaluated in step 2B. Therefore, this rationale is sufficient for its rejection basis as it is not patent eligible and no comments are necessary as it is also consistent with the MPEP 2106.
For dependent claims 26 - 27 and 29 - 37, these claims cover or fall under the same abstract idea(s) of a method of organizing human activity and mental processes. They describe additional limitations steps of:
Claims 26 and 29 – 34 and 36 - 37: further describes the abstract idea of the method for displaying information and the determination of the item information created through a first or second creation operation to search a document in different formats, displaying a page for document access information, determining and indicating due or expiring times per item information, displaying item information states or status in a first and second display area in a determined order based on categories of null value or time point from a queue that include rankings wherein first states of time point category is ranked before the ones belonging to the null category. Also, the limitations further describe displaying recording an item in a document page and a display area, jumping to a location in where the item information is recorded to further display it which includes the display of determining if target user has access to the item being recorded and is moving the item to a display area. Thus, being directed to the abstract idea group of mental processes as these steps encompass concepts performed in the human mind or with a pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Claims 27 and 35: Recite limitations that are directed to a method of organizing human activity because these claims fall under “managing personal interactions between people”. Because the steps recite the “display” and “acquiring” of documents and information items that are accessed or executed/created on the page by “any user” and recite “determining” if target user has obtained the access to the item (e.g. document) based on a “permission application request” that was displayed and sent to a “display” the “document recording the triggered item information” in the document page which are covering interactions in the form of social activities, and/or following rules or instructions.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: For dependent claims 35 and 37, these claims recite the additional elements: a permission application interface (from claim 35), an application program (from claim 37) which are also recited to be merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea to permit access to a user based on user’s “facts” or requests as well as acquiring the item information in the respective app program. Thus, it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, these claim limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and or computing technologies (e.g. that are merely deployed to be used as a tool; see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
Finally, the additional elements previously mentioned above, are nothing more than descriptive language about the elements that define the abstract idea, and these claims remain rejected under 101 as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 23, 26 - 27 and 29 - 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaveri (U.S. Pub No. 20140372539 A1) in view of Mouawad (U.S. Patent No. 11144854 B1).
Regarding claims 23 and 38:
This independent claim set is represented by claim 38
Zaveri teaches:
at least one processor; and at least one memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor cause the apparatus to: (In ¶0099; Fig. 1 (104); Fig. 2A (204 and 104): teaches that “the access server module 204 may be operable to track and manage resources for the ASP system 104, which may involve monitoring/managing computer resource utilization (e.g., memory utilization, processor utilization, or network bandwidth utilization) by various components of the ASP system 104 or cloud-based services (e.g., SaaS, PaaS, or IaaS) utilized by various components of the ASP system 104.”)
acquire item information of a target user from at least one document, wherein the item information of the target user comprises an item for which the target user is a creator and/or executor, the item is a task; and (In ¶0173; Fig. 7 (702 – 704): teaches that “the capture module 404 may be configured to capture contextual information relating to the event detected by the event module 402” wherein the “event may be one resulting from an action performed on the data content object through the ASP system 104 at a request of a first user at the client 102” which is directed to a task requested by the first user (see ¶0172). Further, in Fig. 8, shows a method for “a workspace that supports social productivity” wherein in steps 808 – 810, “the delegate module 510 may be configured to delegate a task to another user (e.g., the second user) in association with at least a portion of content in the data content object” and in response, “delegate module 510 may receive the response to the task from the other user (e.g., the second user), and act according to the response received” or “action” received (see ¶0181 – 182).)
display the acquired item information on an associated page of a current page of the document or in a preset area on a current page, (In ¶0175; Fig. 7 (706 – 708); Figs. 12, 14 and 16: teaches “at step 708, the ASP system 104 may present captured contextual information through an event card presented through a workspace being provided by the workspace module 214 or through a dashboard presented by the dashboard module 216” wherein the reference provided may be “presented in the event card, thereby permitting the second user to select the reference for traversal to the event location”, in accordance to ¶0034 – 35 from applicant specifications. Refer to ¶0204 for a “screenshot of an example interface 1200 for accessing a data content object that is a file and presenting context” as shown in Fig. 12, refer to ¶0207 for “a screenshots of example interfaces 1500, 1502, and 1504 each respectively accessing portions 1404, 1406, and 1408 of content shared by a user through the interface 1400 of FIG. 14” by using “different means of access” such as “word processing application” and refer to ¶0208 for more Fig. 16 details.)
wherein the associated page comprises a page for displaying document access information of the target user, (See Fig. 7 (706 – 708) and Figs. 12, 14 and 16: teaches, specifically in Fig. 16 which displays relevant updates that directs to a specific file that is requested to be fixed and that the user needs to click “Edit the File” to access and open the document on the page, in accordance to ¶0057 – 58 and ¶0151 from applicant specs. Refer to ¶0208 for more Fig. 16 details.)
displaying one or more document access information on the page for displaying the document access information of the target user, wherein the document access information of the target user is used to indicate the document and display it in response to a user's trigger operation; (See Fig. 7 (708 – 712) and Figs.16 and 19 – 20: these figures illustrate creator’s or owner’s information and the name of their document, as well as the people whom is shared with, and the user can interactively click the file or the list of activities related to the file (i.e. “Edit the File”; see Fig. 16; Fig. 17 for list of activities regarding to “workspaceideas.docx” hyperlink and/or Fig. 20, column 2004 for presenting document changes that can be clicked for presentation of a file and its changes) to select and enter to the document or file for display as later shown in Figs. 12 – 13 for editing. See ¶0208 for Fig. 16 details; see ¶0210 – 212 for Fig. 19 details and refer to ¶0214 – 216 for Fig. 20 details)
search for the item information of the target user from item information recorded in multiple documents to be searched (In ¶0201; Fig. 11 (1102 – 1110); Figs. 12 – 13: teaches that “the access server 312 facilitate this update, the access server 312 may fetch all activities and changes relating to the selected file, and pass all activities and changes to the OT engine” which later returns “updated position information” and when “the client 302 is requesting a listing of activities for a certain section (e.g., page N) of the selected file rather than for the entirety of the selected file, the access server 312 may need to filter and provide the listing of activities accordingly, particularly after the OT engine has updated the position information”. Refer to ¶0129 wherein “the capture module 404 may obtain an event indication and/or information by pulling information from the application. Additionally, in some embodiments, the application may provide a listing of changes to the capture module 404 without need for request by the capture module 404. In this way, the application can push an indication and/or information regarding an event to the capture module 404, possibly as the event is occurring at the application or soon after.” See ¶0100 wherein “the storage module 206 may establish a connection with the third-party data storage service using the stored access parameters (e.g., protocol information, username, password, encryption key, signature file identifier, navigation address, third-party storage identifier, or the like) provided by the user, retrieve a listing of the data content objects stored on/using or otherwise made available through the third-party data storage service in association with the access parameters provided, and access the data content objects according to the user's access request.”)
and acquiring the item information of the target user found from the search, (In ¶0201; Fig. 11 (1108 – 1110): teaches “the access server 312 facilitate this update, the access server 312 may fetch all activities and changes relating to the selected file, and pass all activities and changes to the OT engine”, in accordance to ¶0053 from applicant specs.)
wherein the document to be searched comprises at least one of a text document and a table document, and the item information recorded in the document to be searched comprises at least one of item information recorded in text of the text document, item information recorded in a table inserted in the text document, and item information recorded in a cell of the table document. (In ¶0014; Figs. 12 – 13, 15 and 19: teaches that the file or “data content object can be a document file, such a word processing file, a spreadsheet file, a presentation file, or a post-script document file” which under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is directed to include text documents with tables and cells in a table, in accordance to ¶0052 from applicant specs. Refer to ¶0133 wherein details of each file and their format and path are stored in the database.)
Zaveri teaches that the system can receive task responses from other users assigned such as an “action with respect to the task” and the “first user's status of the task will be updated accordingly” wherein such response “comprises content (e.g., copied content portion as revised)” (see ¶0151 – 152 and ¶0182; Zaveri). Also, Zaveri teaches in Fig. 20 an “example dashboard interface 2000” with “event information” for different “workspaces” wherein the interface is divided in “columns” that present the events with “data content objects” (e.g. files or documents) based on different categories per column such as “a change”, “a task and reminder” and “a shared document” columns that can further include more categories that vary by the “type” related to the status of their respective objects in each column directed to the first and second display areas (see ¶214 – 215; Zaveri). However, Zaveri does not explicitly teach the ability of specifically displaying item information in a first and a second state or status at their corresponding display areas. However, Mouawad teaches:
wherein at least one memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor cause the apparatus to: display item information in a first state in a first display area, display item information in a second state in a second display area, on the page for displaying the document access information of the target user, the first state is unfinished state, and the second state is finished state; (In C14; L7 – 13; Figs. 6 (660 and 665), 7A, 11A, 15, 23, 26A, 26B, 26G, 26I and 28: teaches specifically in “FIG. 7A provides a flow chart demonstrating managing task flow and project status changes” wherein “requestors or assignors and assignees associated with a task may change the status of the task via a user interface similar to that described in connection with FIG. 5” such as clicking “Complete” button for “completing a task” directed to the second state, in accordance to ¶0094 – 95 from applicant specs. Further, for Fig. 15, “the task status board may be shown as a pie chart, Bar graphs, histograms, line charts, or any other visual representation may be used to show task status” and “in other embodiments, numerical values may be shown as the task status.” (see C26; L63 – 67). Refer to C14; L31 – 45 wherein tasks can be deemed “In Progress” status directed to the first state and to C12; L28 – 41 wherein “user interface may be provided which may show the user's own tasks and tasks that need the user's actions (e.g., assigned by others to the user)” and “the ‘assigned to me’ interface may also include counts relating to the status of tasks which are related to the user. For example, the information may include a total number of drafts, in process, completed and/or overdue tasks” in different columns or regions. See C15; L61 – 67 wherein a “task management pane may keep track of the total number of drafts, tasks in process, tasks completed, and/or tasks that are overdue”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaveri to provide the ability of displaying item information in a first and a second state or status at their corresponding display areas, as taught by Mouawad in order to “provide improved task management for future projects or tasks (i.e. assigning the right task to the right person based on previous performance)” and to “provide reminders and summaries to participants involved, freeing valuable time and manual follow-up” (C1; L19 – 22 and L47 – 49 ; Mouawad).
Regarding claim 39:
Zaveri further teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing a computer program that, when being executed by a processor, implements the method according to claim 23. (In ¶0226; Fig. 22 (2204 and 2206): teaches “Both the memory system 2204 and the storage system 2206 comprise computer readable media which may store instructions or programs that are executable by a computer processor including the processor 2202”. Refer to ¶0037 and ¶0065 for general details of the system being implemented in the “digital device”)
Zaveri teaches that the system can receive task responses from other users assigned such as an “action with respect to the task” and the “first user's status of the task will be updated accordingly” wherein such response “comprises content (e.g., copied content portion as revised)” (see ¶0151 – 152 and ¶0182; Zaveri). Also, Zaveri teaches in Fig. 20 an “example dashboard interface 2000” with “event information” for different “workspaces” wherein the interface is divided in “columns” that present the events with “data content objects” (e.g. files or documents) based on different categories per column such as “a change”, “a task and reminder” and “a shared document” columns that can further include more categories that vary by the “type” related to the status of their respective objects in each column directed to the first and second display areas (see ¶214 – 215; Zaveri). However, Zaveri does not explicitly teach the ability of specifically displaying item information in a first and a second state or status at their corresponding display areas from one of the steps recited in claim 23’s method. However, Mouawad teaches:
wherein at least one memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor cause the apparatus to: display item information in a first state in a first display area, display item information in a second state in a second display area, on the page for displaying the document access information of the target user. (In C14; L7 – 13; Figs. 7A, 23, 26A, 26B, 26G, 26I and 28: teaches specifically in “FIG. 7A provides a flow chart demonstrating managing task flow and project status changes” wherein “requestors or assignors and assignees associated with a task may change the status of the task via a user interface similar to that described in connection with FIG. 5” such as clicking “Complete” button for “completing a task” directed to the second state, in accordance to ¶0094 – 95 from applicant specs. Refer to C14; L31 – 45 wherein tasks can be deemed “In Progress” status directed to the first state.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaveri to provide the ability of displaying item information in a first and a second state or status at their corresponding display areas, as taught by Mouawad in order to “provide improved task management for future projects or tasks (i.e. assigning the right task to the right person based on previous performance)” and to “provide reminders and summaries to participants involved, freeing valuable time and manual follow-up” (C1; L19 – 22 and L47 – 49 ; Mouawad).
Regarding claim 26:
The combination of Zaveri and Mouawad, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 23.
Zaveri further teaches:
wherein the displaying the acquired item information comprises: determining due item information that expires within a preset time period according to an item deadline and a current time; and (In ¶0146 – 147; Fig. 16 (see “Summary…More” from element 1602): teaches under BRI, that “the event notification module 506 may include an event card comprising a unit of summarized information regarding the event in association with the data content object” wherein the card may include “a secondary action (e.g., call of action) configured to be performed an operation with respect to the card at the request of the user perceiving the card (e.g., the percipient user)” wherein the secondary action can be “deferring presentation of the first card (e.g., defer based on time, date, or another event)” and the summary can also include “a date stamp for when the card was presented and/or when the event occurred” (see ¶0147 and ¶0167). Refer to ¶0129 wherein the system connected to “the application can push an indication and/or information regarding an event to the capture module 404, possibly as the event is occurring at the application or soon after” and can “receive event indications and/or information according to a schedule, based on satisfaction of certain conditions (e.g., occurrence of a specific type of event), or some combination thereof” as well as “indications and/or information for events other than those relating to changes to a data content object” which under BRI can include indications of item deadlines and current times.)
indicating the due item information among the displayed item information by predefined indication information. (see Fig. 16 (see “Summary…More” from element 1602): wherein the display of due item information may be in “Summary…More” from element 1602, as further disclosed in ¶0146 – 147 and ¶0129.)
Regarding claim 27:
The combination of Zaveri and Mouawad, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 23.
Zaveri further teaches:
further comprising: displaying, in response to a document access operation, a page of the document indicated by the document access operation; (See Fig. 16 (see “Edit the File” from element 1602). Refer to ¶0208 for more Fig. 16 details. See Fig. 19 also.)
acquiring item information of the document indicated by the document access operation, wherein the item information comprises an item executed and/or created by any user; and (In ¶0211; Figs. 16 and 19: teaches “properties pane 1902 includes a section 1904 that provides general information regarding the workspace, such workspace name, cumulative data size of the data content objects associated with the workspace, the creator of the workspace, and the date of creation”.)
displaying the item information of the document indicated by the document access operation on a current page of the accessed document. (See Figs. 12 and 16: teaches in Fig. 16 shows user access that is indicated for a particular document by clicking “Edit the File” to open the document wherein, further Fig. 12 shows an example of the opened file wherein the user can still see notifications related to the document in a separate pane. Refer to ¶0204 for more Fig. 12 details.)
Regarding claim 29:
The combination of Zaveri and Mouawad, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 23.
Zaveri further teaches:
wherein an order in which the item information is displayed in the first display area is determined through a first order determination step, and the first order determination step comprises: determining, based on first time information associated with the item information in the first state, an order in which the item information in the first state is to be displayed. (In ¶0220; Fig. 20 (2008 and 2010): teaches that “each column may provide event cards from an order based on relevance (e.g., most relevant to least relevant)” and “each column may provide a count indicating the number of event cards that need to be addressed by the user (e.g., by way of a second action associated with an event card)” which is directed to the item information in the first state since a second action can be “entering a comment in association with the first card (e.g., liking an event, liking an existing comment, or replying to a an existing comment)” by a second user (see ¶0146). Also, the order based on relevance can include “did the user recently create the data content object, did the user recently change the data content object; has the user commented on the data content object; has the user reviewed the content of the data content object; and has the user collaboratively worked with another user that has changed or otherwise accessed the data content object” (see ¶0216). Refer to ¶0170 for more details about event cards arrangement based on “card categories and/or relevance to the user perceiving the dashboard” and refer to ¶0128 wherein the system capture contextual information related to events detected such as user performing actions that are provided as “a listing of changes implemented to the data content object” by an application wherein the changes can be “sorted according to time of implementation (e.g., oldest to most recent change)”.)
Regarding claim 30:
The combination of Zaveri and Mouawad, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 29.
Zaveri does not explicitly teach the abilities of having a null value or a time point as a category to determine the order to display item information in the first state, generate a queue for it and determine the order of item information of the time point category in the first state being ranked before the item information of the null category in the first state. However, Mouawad further teaches:
wherein content indicated by the first time information comprises at least one of: a null value or a time point, wherein the determining, based on the first time information associated with the item information in the first state, the order in which the item information in the first state is to be displayed comprises: determining, based on the content indicated by the first time information, a category that the item information in the first state falls into, wherein the category that the item information in the first state falls into comprises at least one of: a null category and a time point category; (In C15; L61 – 67; Fig. 15: teaches that “task management pane may keep track of active tasks and/or task status” for “tasks in process, tasks completed, and/or tasks that are overdue” (directed to the null value or time point) wherein “a visual indicator may be given for each total category” such as “a color representative of the category/task status” and a “number that indicates the number of tasks in each category”. Also, the category for item information in the first state or “in process” tasks is reflected in the “task status board includes tasks board 1502 that provides a visual representation of a breakdown of a plurality of tasks into categories according to their statuses” such as “(1) in process, used to indicate work in progress within active target date;” (directed to time point category) “(2) overdue, used to indicate work in progress beyond the target date” and “(3) completed, used to indicate work that assignee completed and/or returned to requestor (waiting to be closed, e.g., by the requestor)” which is directed to null category (see C27; L1 – 20), in accordance to ¶0101 – 102 from applicant specs. Refer to C12; L21 – 27 for more “default values” or null values and “default timeframes” or time point value given to task information.)
generating a queue of the item information in the first state; and (In C13 - 14; L66 – 17 and L1 – 2; Figs. 10, 11A, 23, 28, 39 – 41 and 45: teaches the generation of a queue, when “the assignee” is “provided with an option to order the list of assignments assigned to the assignee” wherein the order can be based on many filters such as “by requestor, project, task, due date, messages, or any other parameters” and any other factors.)
determining, based on the queue of the item information in the first state, the order in which the item information in the first state is to be displayed, wherein in the queue of the item information in the first state, the item information of the time point category in the first state is ranked before the item information of the null category in the first state. (In C40; L37 – 67; Figs. 28 and 45: teaches that the system can determine the order in which the item information in the first state is to be displayed, specifically since the system allows the user to use “one, two, or more sort filters” via a “droplist or other similar control” implemented in a “Task Feed” as shown in Figs. 28 and 45. Wherein such filters can be a first filter for first state or “in process” tasks to appear and be sorted based on “target date” (directed to time point category) and then a second filter for “in process” tasks based on or sort by “recent date” (directed to the null category) in order to provide the user with the most urgent or “earliest target date” tasks first, in accordance to ¶0106 from applicant specs )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaveri to provide the abilities of having a null value or a time point as a category to determine the order to display item information in the first state, generate a queue for it and determine the order of item information of the time point category in the first state being ranked before the item information of the null category in the first state, as taught by Mouawad in order to “provide improved task management for future projects or tasks (i.e. assigning the right task to the right person based on previous performance)” and to “provide reminders and summaries to participants involved, freeing valuable time and manual follow-up” (C1; L19 – 22 and L47 – 49 ; Mouawad).
Regarding claim 31:
The combination of Zaveri and Mouawad, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 30.
Zaveri does not explicitly teach the ability of determining a ranking based on a time point indicated for the item information in the first state in the queue. However, Mouawad further teaches:
wherein the generating a queue of the item information in the first state comprises: determining, based on a time point indicated by the first time information associated with the item information in the first state, a ranking of the item information of the time point category in the first state in the queue of the item information in the first state. (In C40; L37 – 67; Figs. 28 and 45: teaches that the system can generate a queue (see C13 - 14; L66 – 17 and L1 – 2 and Fig. 45) and can determine the order in which the item information in the first state is to be displayed, specifically for a time point indicated such as selecting a deadline or “target date option” which “may cause” the “in process” tasks of the first state to be “sorted according to target date” when implemented in a “Task Feed” as shown in Figs. 28 and 45.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaveri to provide the ability of determining a ranking based on a time point indicated for the item information in the first state in the queue, as taught by Mouawad in order to “provide improved task management for future projects or tasks (i.e. assigning the right task to the right person based on previous performance)” and to “provide reminders and summaries to participants involved, freeing valuable time and manual follow-up” (C1; L19 – 22 and L47 – 49 ; Mouawad).
Regarding claim 32:
The combination of Zaveri and Mouawad, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 23.
Zaveri does not explicitly teach the ability of specifically determining second time information in the second state or “completed” status (according to ¶0094 – 95 from applicant specs) to display item information in the second state in an order. However, Mouawad further teaches:
wherein an order in which the item information in the second state is to be displayed in the second display area is determined through a second order determination step, and the second order determination step comprises: determining, based on second time information associated with the item information in the second state, the order in which the item information in the second state is to be displayed. (In C40; L40 – 52; Fig. 28: teaches that the system can determine an order for item information in a second state or “completed status” as shown in Fig. 28 wherein “the status filter 2802 may be implemented using a droplist or other similar control that contains textual and/or graphical representation of various task status or substatuses such as “Active Tasks” which may further include sub tasks statuses such as “In Progress,” “Completed,” and “Overdue.” Refer to Figs. 39 – 40 wherein boards and their tasks can be listed in any order)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaveri to provide the ability of specifically determining second time information in the second state or “completed” status (according to ¶0094 – 95 from applicant specs) to display item information in the second state in an order, as taught by Mouawad in order to “provide improved task management for future projects or tasks (i.e. assigning the right task to the right person based on previous performance)” and to “provide reminders and summaries to participants involved, freeing valuable time and manual follow-up” while the user have a sneak peak of how the tasks look like in the board (C1; L19 – 22 and L47 – 49 ; Mouawad).
Regarding claim 33:
The combination of Zaveri and Mouawad, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 23.
Zaveri further teaches:
further comprising: displaying, in response to detection of a trigger operation on the displayed item information, a document page recording the item information. (In ¶0100; Figs. 2B, 12 and 16; Fig. 10 (1002 – 1008): teaches that when “the user requests access to data content objects (e.g., files) stored using a third-party data storage service, the storage module 206 may establish a connection with the third-party data storage service using the stored access parameters” such as “password” and/or “encryption key, signature file identifier, navigation address, third-party storage identifier”. Then the data content objects requested are accessed by the user in order to “open, view, or edit a file” of the content object which directed to displaying a document page recording the item information as shown in Figs. 12 and 16, in accordance to ¶0126 from applicant specs. Refer to ¶0104 and ¶0208 for more Figs. 12 and 16 details, respectively.)
Regarding claim 34:
Zaveri, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 33.
Zaveri further teaches:
further comprising at least one of: jumping to a location where the item information is recorded on the document page to display the item information; and (In ¶0084; Fig. 7 (706 – 712); Fig. 11 (1112 – 1114): teaches that “the ASP system 104 can present one or more users with a reference to a location in the data content object that relates the event” which “can result in the ASP system 104 providing the client 102 with access to an application that is executing on behalf of the client 102 and that is accessing the content of the data content object at the location referenced”. Refer to ¶0109, ¶0138 and ¶0199 for more details.)
Regarding claim 35:
Zaveri, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 33.
Zaveri further teaches:
wherein the displaying, in response to detection of a trigger operation on the displayed item information, a document page recording the item information comprises: displaying a permission application interface in response to a fact that the target user does not have access to the document recording the triggered item information; (In ¶0100; Fig. 2A (208 and 210): teaches under BRI, that “when the user requests to review a listing of data content objects (e.g., files) stored on the third-party data storage service or when the user chooses to access data content objects (e.g., open, view, or edit a file) using an application provided by the ASP system 104 (e.g., through the application module 210)” directed to permission application interface, in accordance to ¶0128 from applicant specs. Also, in ¶0102 “virtualization module 208 may be configured to establish, monitor, maintain, or otherwise manage execution of an instance of an application in a virtual computing environment (hereafter, also referred to as a “virtualized application instance”) for access by the user at the client 102” wherein “an instance of the application may be executed in a virtual computing environment in association with an application session established for access by the user at the client 102” which is also directed to permission application interface. Refer to ¶0031 wherein the system can “determine one or more other users authorized and designated to receive a notification about the one or more particular events”)
sending a permission application request based on an operation performed on the permission application interface by the target user; and displaying, in response to determination that the target user has obtained the access to the document based on the permission application request, the document recording the triggered item information (In ¶0100; Figs. 2B, 12 and 16; Fig. 10 (1002 – 1008): teaches under BRI that when “the user requests access to data content objects (e.g., files) stored using a third-party data storage service, the storage module 206 may establish a connection with the third-party data storage service using the stored access parameters” such as “password” and/or “encryption key, signature file identifier, navigation address, third-party storage identifier” directed to using a permission application interface to log in credentials. Then the data content objects requested are accessed by the user in order to “open, view, or edit a file” of the content object which directed to displaying a document page recording the item information as shown in Figs. 12 and 16, in accordance to ¶0126 – 127 from applicant specs. Refer to ¶0104 and ¶0208 for more Figs. 12 and 16 details, respectively.)
Regarding claim 36:
Zaveri, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 33.
Zaveri further teaches:
wherein displaying, in response to detection of a trigger operation on the displayed item information, a document page recording the item information comprises: displaying, in response to the detection of the trigger operation on the displayed item information, the document page recording the item information and a display area for displaying the item information together. (See Fig. 12 and Fig. 16 (see “Summary…More” from element 1602): teaches in Fig. 16 document file before clicking “Edit the File” with item information such as “relevant updates” and in Fig. 12 shows the document page and a display area directed to the “notifications area” with item information, in accordance to ¶0129 – 131 from applicant specs. Refer to ¶0104 and ¶0208 for more Figs. 12 and 16 details, respectively.)
Regarding claim 37:
Zaveri, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 23.
Zaveri does not explicitly teach the ability of moving the item information to a display area of a state indicated or switching a state of the item information in an application program. However, Mouawad further teaches:
further comprising: moving, in response to detection of a state switch operation on the item information, the item information targeted by the state switch operation to a display area corresponding to a state indicated by the state switch operation; or, switching, in response to detection of a state switch operation on the item information, a state of the item information in the document recording the item information; and/or switching a state of the item information in an application program that has acquired the item information; or, switching, in response to detection of a state switch operation on item information recorded in a document page, a state of corresponding item information in a display area where the item information is displayed. (In C15; L58 – 65; Figs.5, 7A and 25: these conditional limitations are satisfied by this prior art since the prior art teaches that “the assignee may click a “Complete” button at the top of the task detail pane and the status of the task may change from “In Progress” or “Overdue” to “Complete”” which is directed to switching a state of the item information which is reflected in a display area, in accordance to ¶0134 – 135 and ¶0141 from applicant specs. Refer to Figs. 25 and 26A wherein the tasks marked as “in progress” and/or “completed” are displayed in a calendar and other sections.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaveri to provide the ability of moving the item information to a display area of a state indicated or switching a state of the item information in an application program, as taught by Mouawad in order to “provide improved task management for future projects or tasks (i.e. assigning the right task to the right person based on previous performance)” and to “provide reminders and summaries to participants involved, freeing valuable time and manual follow-up” (C1; L19 – 22 and L47 – 49 ; Mouawad).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Steplyk (U.S. Pub No. 20170364866 A1) is pertinent because it is a system that “receives a task list for a project, where the task list includes a plurality of tasks, and creates a collaborative object including the task list. Additionally, the system associates a task to a document and receives an update to the document to complete the task. In response to receiving the update to the document, the system updates the task list to reflect completion of the task and provides a control for performing an action upon completion of the task list.”
Sichart (U.S. Pub No. 20090254406 A1) is pertinent because it “present embodiments relate to workspace visualization.”
Colafrancheschi (U.S. Pub No. 20190287188 A1) is pertinent because it “relates generally to the field of dynamic digital tickets, and more specifically to methods, systems, and computer program products for generating and updating dynamic digital tickets within digital boards.”
Gauger (U.S. Pub No. 20070192156 A1) is pertinent because it is “a project monitoring apparatus and method which enables easy, interaction between authorized individuals in all phases of the project sequence, which minimizes notifications to individual about project issues, tasks, changes, etc., where such notifications are not necessary, and provides project documentation which can be archived for future reference.”
Madisetti (U.S. Pub No. 20210081367 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to real-time collaboration and annotation-based task creation and management.”
Howell (U.S. Pub No. 20150309978 A1) is pertinent because it “relates generally to tools and techniques for data management, and more specifically, to systems and methods for annotating electronically-stored data with user-viewable, machine-readable, persistent, electronic tick marks.”
Kagawa (U.S. Pub No. 20090235182 A1) is pertinent because it “generally relate to information processing technologies for assisting collaborative activity, and particularly relate to a collaborative-activity assisting apparatus, a collaborative-activity assisting system, a collaborative-activity assisting method, and a recording medium having a collaborative-activity assisting program embodied therein for providing an environment in which a plurality of users can share activity contexts indicative of shared information and activity statuses.”
Bellet (U.S. Pub No. 20210110327 A1) is pertinent because it “relates generally to tools and methods for managing workflow, and specifically to tools for providing users with directions for starting a new task.”
Hull (U.S. Pub No. 20150317073 A1) is pertinent because it “pertains generally to data processing systems, and more particularly, but not by way of limitation, to a platform for workplace collaboration.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ivonnemary Rivera Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-6158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/IVONNEMARY RIVERA GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights