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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 2/6/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per independent claims 1, 8, and 15, they recite “…traverse the graph to determine a first node and a second node of the graph, the first node and the second node being determined by the prompt generation engine to be relevant nodes to the software engineering task…”. The examiner is unclear as what is meant by “relevant” as the examiner understands “relevant” to mean “relating in an appropriate way”/“having a significant bearing on” etc. (see definition below) and different persons of ordinary skill in the art may have different opinions as to what would how closely something needs to be related to be considered an appropriate relation/how much of a bearing something needs to have to be considered a significant bearing/etc., and as such the term “relevant” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relevant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider “relevant to” to mean “related” and will consider these limitations to be “…traverse the graph to determine a first node and a second node of the graph, the first node and the second node being determined by the prompt generation engine to be nodes that are related to the software engineering task…”.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relevant
relevant adjective
1 a: relating in an appropriate way to something under consideration: having significant and demonstrable bearing on or relation to the matter at hand
As per dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, they incorporate the deficiencies of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, upon which they respectively depend, and fail to correct the deficiencies of claims 1, 8, and 15. Therefore, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected for similar reasoning as claims 1, 8, and 15, above.
As per claims 6 and 11, they further recite “…generates an ordering of the relevant nodes that are relevant to the software engineering task”/ “…relevant nodes to the software engineering task”, and as seen in the 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 8, and 15 above, the examiner is unclear as to what is meant by “relevant” as different persons of ordinary skill in the art may have different opinions as to what may make a node “relevant”. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider these limitations to be “…generates an ordering of the nodes that are related to the software engineering task” and “…nodes that are related to the software engineering task …”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per independent claim 1, it recites “A computing system, comprising: a processor system; and a computer storage medium that stores computer-executable instructions that are executable by the processor system to utilize a graph representing a source code program to generate a prompt by at least causing the computing system to: receive a query relating to a software engineering task to perform on a source code program; cause a prompt generation engine of the computing system to traverse the graph to determine a first nodes and a second node of the graph, the first node and the second node being determined by the prompt generation engine to be relevant nodes that are relevant to the software engineering task; cause the prompt generation engine of the computing system to generate a code directive, the code directive comprising source code associated with the first node and a description of a relationship between the first node and the second node; cause the prompt generation engine of the computing system to generate the prompt for input to a language model, the prompt comprising the code directives; transmit the prompt to the language model; receive a response from the language model, the response corresponding to the software engineering task; and output in the software development tool an output that includes the response from the language model or that is derived from the response from the language model.”
The limitations “…traverse the graph to determine a first nodes and a second node of the graph, the first node and the second node being determined…to be relevant nodes that are relevant to the software engineering task;”, “generate a code directive, the code directive comprising source code associated with the first node and a description of a relationship between the first node and the second node”, and “generate the prompt for input to a language model, the prompt comprising the code directives”, as drafted, recites a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a human may mentally/with pen and paper/etc. analyze/evaluate/judge/observe/traverse/etc. a graph/tree/etc. having nodes and edges and judge/decide/determine/identify/etc. nodes related/relevant to a software engineering task, may mentally/with pen and paper/etc. write/create/generate/etc. source code and a description of a relationship between nodes/a code directive comprising source code associated with the first node and a description of a relationship between the first node and the second node/etc., and may mentally/with pen and paper/etc. write/create/generate/etc. input/prompt/information/etc. comprising source code and a description of relationships/code directives/etc. to be provided to a language model/the prompt for input to a language model, the prompt comprising the code directives/etc.. As such, with broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recite the abstract idea of a mental process. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “A computing system, comprising: a processor system; and a computer storage medium that stores computer-executable instructions that are executable by the processor system to utilize a graph representing a source code program to generate a prompt by at least causing the computing system to”, “receive a query relating to a software engineering task to perform on a source code program”, “cause a prompt generation engine of the computing system to”, “by the prompt generation engine”, “transmit the prompt to the language model”, “receive a response from the language model, the response corresponding to the software engineering task”, and “output in the software development tool an output that includes the response from the language model or that is derived from the response from the language model.”
The additional elements “A computing system, comprising: a processor system; and a computer storage medium that stores computer-executable instructions that are executable by the processor system to utilize a graph representing a source code program to generate a prompt by at least causing the computing system to”, “cause a prompt generation engine of the computing system to”, and “by the prompt generation engine” recites that high level/generic computer components/computing system comprising a processor system and computer storage medium/prompt generation engine/etc. are used to implement/perform the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception, and as such amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. The additional elements “receive a query relating to a software engineering task to perform on a source code program”, “transmit the prompt to the language model”, “receive a response from the language model, the response corresponding to the software engineering task”, and “output in the software development tool an output that includes the response from the language model or that is derived from the response from the language model” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering/receiving/etc. data, transmitting data, and outputting/displaying/transmitting/etc. data, and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g), etc..
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, which does not provide an inventive concept and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process, and the insignificant extra solution activities of gathering/receiving/etc. data, transmitting data, and outputting/displaying/transmitting/etc. data, and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). As such, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception/mental process/abstract idea and, accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
As per claim 2, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the relationship between the first node and the second node comprises at least one of: "contains," "is defined by", "is referenced by", "writes to", "reads from", "calls to", "is called by", "extends", "is extended by", "was produced by template", "is defined by a typedef to be", and "is lined into” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception, and as such does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 2 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 3, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…perform one or more static analysis on the source code program in a background process during a user session of the software development tool, wherein the one or more static analyses generate internal compiler-related data structures.” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception/judgement/analysis/evaluation/determination/etc., and as such does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 3 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 4, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…generate an edge between the first node and the second node from the internal compiler-related data structures” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception, and as such does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 4 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 5, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “… wherein the internal compiler-related data structures comprise a symbol table, def-use chains, use-def chains, and/or a control flow graph” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception, and as such does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 5 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 6, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the traversal of the graph generates an ordering of the relevant nodes that are relevant to the software engineering task” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception, and as such does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 6 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 7, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “… wherein the software engineering task comprises code summarization, wherein the response provides an answer to the query on how a particular portion of the source code program functions” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the data/information being gathered/received/etc. and output/provided/displayed/etc. in the insignificant extra solution activities, and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). As such, claim 7 does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 7 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per independent claim 8, it recites a method having similar limitations as the steps performed by the computing system of claim 1, and as such recites the same deficiencies as claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 9, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 8, upon which it depends, and further recites “…generating the graph in a background process of a user session of the source code program in the source code editor” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/drawing/creating/generating the graph/tree/etc., and as such does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 9 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 8, and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 8, above.
As per claim 10, recites a method having similar limitation as the system of claim 2, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 2, above.
As per claim 11, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 8, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein traversing the graph to determine the first node and the second node are relevant nodes to the software engineering task further comprises: generating a candidate set of nodes, wherein a node in the candidate set is associated with a source code line number range within a currently-viewed portion of the source code program in the source code editor” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception/determining/finding/analyzing/etc., and as such does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 11 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 8, and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 8, above.
As per claim 12, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 8, upon which it depends, and further recites “…selecting a root node from the candidate set of nodes, wherein the root node has a smallest source code line number range and a node type of function definition, type definition or file” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception/judging/selecting/determining/etc., and as such does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 12 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 8, and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 8, above.
As per claim 13, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 8, upon which it depends, and further recites “…further comprising: forming a target node set of target nodes from the candidate node set, wherein a target node has a smallest source code line number range” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception/judging/selecting/determining/identifying/forming/etc., and as such does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 13 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 8, and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 8, above.
As per claim 14, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 8, upon which it depends, and further recites “…forming a query node set comprising the root node, the target nodes, and nodes along shortest paths from the root node to each target node” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception/judging/selecting/determining/identifying/forming/etc., and as such does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 14 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 8, and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 8, above.
As per claim 15, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 8, upon which it depends, and further recites “…traversing the target nodes in a breadth-first traversal order to add additional nodes to the query node set” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception/judging/analyzing/traversing/etc., and as such does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 15 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 8, and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 8, above.
As per independent claim 16, it recites a hardware storage device having similar limitations as the system of claim 1, and as such recites the same deficiencies as claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above. Claim 16 recites the additional elements “A hardware storage device storing computer-executable instructions that are executable by a processor system of a computing system to utilize a graph representing a source code program to generate a prompt by at least causing the computing system to” which recites that high level/generic computer components are used to implement/perform/apply/etc. the abstract idea/mental process, and as such amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process; and further recites the additional elements “cause the language model to perform the software engineering task based on the response” which, with broadest reasonable interpretation, amounts to an insignificant extra solution activity of performing/outputting/etc. a software engineering task, which may be upgrading data/information/code/software/etc.,/displaying information/transmitting information/storing software/etc. using a high level/generic language model, and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, See MPEP 2106.05(d), and as such these additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements of claim 16 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and claim 16 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 17, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 16, upon which it depends, and further recites “…having stored thereon computer executable instructions that are structured to be executable by the processor system of the computing device to thereby cause the computing device to perform actions that: generate a semantic model of the source code program in a background process of the software development tool, wherein the semantic model comprises symbol data, data flow data and control flow data of the source code program” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/generating a model/determining data flow/judging control flow/deciding symbols/etc., and as such does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 17 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 16, and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 16, above.
As per claim 18, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 16, upon which it depends, and further recites “…utilize the semantic model to generate an edge between the first node and the second node” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/generating/judging/deciding an edge/etc., and as such does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 18 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 16, and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 16, above.
As per claim 19, it recites a hardware storage device having similar limitations as the method of claim 9, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 9, above.
As per claim 20, it recites a hardware storage device having similar limitations as the system of claim 2, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 2, above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per the 112 arguments on pg. 12 par. 1 of the remarks that the amended independent claims have been amended to clarify what is meant by “relevant”, and therefore the claims are allowable under 35 USC 12, the examiner, respectfully, disagrees. The examiner would like to point out that the examiner is still unclear as to what is meant by “relevant” as different persons of ordinary skill in the art may have different opinions as to the criteria that needs to be satisfied for something/ a node/etc. to be considered “relevant”, as seen in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112, above.
Therefore, the examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and maintains that the rejection under 35 USC 101 is proper.
As per the 101 arguments on pg. 12 par. 2-pg. 23 par. 3 of the remarks that the amended independent claims are allowable under 35 USC 101 because the claims do not recite a mental process as the human mind is not equipped to perform the limitations/operations recited in the claims, and that any mental process is integrated into a practical application and that the claims amount to significantly more than any mental process, as the claims recite specific operations involving selection and utilization of particular models/engines to generate, process, and traverse a graph representing source code to generate prompts for input to a language model to perform software engineering task and recite an improvement in the technology of using code derivatives as context of the software engineering task thereby providing the model/engine additional information on the structure of the program that is not apparent from mere source code snippets which allows for traversal of the code directives to find the nodes most relevant to a user query and for construction of highly-relevant and complex prompts; and further that inclusion of the code derivatives allows for language models to learn the semantics of partially formed source code to generate a more useful response and allow for the model to learn the structure/syntax/semantics/etc. of the source code or be trained on the software engineering task, and further reduces the number of attempts the user must make to obtain a useful and more relevant response to the user query as the context provides relevant background guiding the model toward generating a more accurate response, and further the method of selecting the nodes including selecting a root node having the smallest number of source code lines produces an optimal context targeted to the user query thereby providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer, and further that the claims recite the use of a particular machine/prompt generation engine/etc. to perform the elements/limitations rather than a generic/general purpose computer/computer components/etc. which integrates any abstract idea into a practical application as it plays a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed and are not merely nominally/tangentially related to the invention such as a data gathering step or a field of use limitation, and therefore the claims are indicative of a developmental state for eh subject and amount to significantly more than a judicial exception therefore favoring eligibility under 35 USC 101 as the recited acts/limitations help improve the technical processes being performed and are not merely performing a process on a machine, the examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
The examiner would first like to point out that a human may mentally/with pen and paper/etc. perform limitations/elements/etc. recited in the amended independent claims, as seen in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 101 above, and as such the independent claims do recite an abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception. The examiner would further like to point out that the actual wording/phrasing of the amended independent claims (claim 1) is “A computing system, comprising: a processor system; and a computer storage medium that stores computer-executable instructions that are executable by the processor system to utilize a graph representing a source code program to generate a prompt by at least causing the computing system to: receive a query relating to a software engineering task to perform on a source code program; cause a prompt generation engine of the computing system to traverse the graph to determine a first nodes and a second node of the graph, the first node and the second node being determined by the prompt generation engine to be relevant nodes that are relevant to the software engineering task; cause the prompt generation engine of the computing system to generate a code directive, the code directive comprising source code associated with the first node and a description of a relationship between the first node and the second node; cause the prompt generation engine of the computing system to generate the prompt for input to a language model, the prompt comprising the code directives; transmit the prompt to the language model; receive a response from the language model, the response corresponding to the software engineering task; and output in the software development tool an output that includes the response from the language model or that is derived from the response from the language model” which does not actually recite/require/etc. that the query is a user query, that the selection of the nodes includes selecting any root node/node having a smallest number of lines/etc., or any traversal of the code directives to find the nodes most relevant to a user query, only that the code directives are generated and transmitted to the language model as a prompt, that a query that is in some way relating to a software engineering task is somehow received from something, and that a graph representing source code is traversed to find nodes relevant to the software engineering task. Similarly, the claims do not provide any clarification as to how the language model uses the prompt/code directives, the language model learning structure/syntax/semantics of the code, the language model being trained, etc., and does not clarify that the response from the language model is useful/relevant to the a user query, but rather only recites/requires that the prompt is transmitted to the language model, that a response is received from the language model, and that the response somehow corresponds to the software engineering task which has some sort of relation to the received query. As such, with broadest reasonable interpretation, the amended independent claims do not actually recite/require all the elements asserted as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, the examiner would further like to point out that the claims do not recite/prove/etc. clarification as to what the asserted particular machines/prompt generation engine/etc. is made of/comprises/the how the engine performs its actions/etc., but rather only provides clarification that the engine is used to perform the elements/limitations/steps/actions/etc. recited in the claims. As such, with broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited prompt generation engine is not a particular machine as it is not clarified as to what it is made of and it may use any number of different internal methods/actions/processes to perform the limitations/actions/limitations it is recited as being used to perform. As such, with broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements/limitations of the amended independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. The examiner would like to suggest that if the applicant intended for the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims to be limited to the interpretation argued in the remarks that the applicant consider further clarification including these features/limitations in the claims.
Therefore, the examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and maintains that the rejection under 35 USC 101 is proper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS M SLACHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-0653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/DOUGLAS M SLACHTA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights