DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the communication filed 3/29/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirely as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) or (f).
Claim Objections
Claims 6-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“an AAR file of a target application program” at line 5 of claim 6 should be: the AAR file of the target application program
Claim 7 is objected for failing to cure the deficiency from its respective parent claim by dependency
“corresponding associated code resource bundle” at last 2 lines of claim 8 should be: corresponding associated code resource bundle.
Claims 9-14 are objected for failing to cure the deficiency from their respective parent claim by dependency
Each of claims 13 and 20 is objected to same reason as set forth in (I)
Claim 14 is objected for failing to cure the deficiency from its respective parent claim by dependency
“corresponding associated code resource bundle” at last 2 lines of claim 15 should be: corresponding associated code resource bundle.
Claims 16-20 are objected for failing to cure the deficiency from their respective parent claim by dependency
Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding to Claim 15, Claim 15 recites a computer-readable medium includes or stores a computer program product comprising a computer program. According to the specification (particularly [0103] and [0114], such as “the computer-readable medium mentioned in the present disclosure can be a computer-readable signal medium” and “In the present disclosure, the computer-readable signal media may include data signals propagated in a baseband or as part of a carrier wave, which carries computer-readable program codes”), the claimed “computer-readable medium” under BRI would include signals. Signals are directed to a non-statutory subject matter. Thus, Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for directing to a non-statutory subject matter. Examiner suggests amending the claim element as: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium in order to draw the claim to non-transitory subject matter.
Claims 16-20 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiency from their respective parent claim by dependency.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-2, 8-9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN 112416303 A, publication date: 2/26/2021, English translation provided by Google Patents, hereafter Wei) in view of Bridges (US 20140280767 A1) and Hou et al. (US 20160316007 A1, hereafter Hou).
Regarding to claim 1, Wei discloses: A class file processing method (see [0004]-[0010]; “a method for software development kit hot repair is provided” and “wherein the code to be repaired comprises a class to be repaired”), comprising:
obtaining respective anonymous inner class files generated after performing class file merging and compiling on respective class files in an Android Archive (AAR) file of a target application program (see [0003], [0006]-[0008]; “the SDK code needs to be desugarized, so that the SDK can run on an Android device … performing the desugaring treatment in the compilation process of the SDK”, “generate a private method and an internal class corresponding to the expression containing the grammatical sugar … adding a private method and an internal class into the patch class; generating each patch corresponding to the code to be repaired based on the patch class added with the private method and the internal class”. Also see [0058]-[0061]; “where the compressed packet form refers to a JAR (Java archive) file, and JAR is a software package file format and is generally used for aggregating a large number of Java class files, related metadata and resource (text, picture, etc.) files into one file so as to develop Java platform application software or a library”. And thus the inner class file(s) discussed at [0006]-[0008] is/are actually class file(s) at JAR file at Android device, i.e., Android Archive (AAR) file of a target application program running on the Android device. Also see [0072] and [0075]; “the expression containing grammatical sugars is a lambda expression” and “the lambda expression is an anonymous function for implementing the logic of the variable”. And thus, the inner class file(s) discussed at Wei is/are anonymous inner class file(s)).
Wei does not disclose:
parsing file name identifying information of the respective anonymous inner class files;
determining associated code resource bundles of respective corresponding anonymous inner class files based on parsing results of respective file name identifying information; and
in response to that the associated code resource bundle of one anonymous inner class file is inconsistent with a code resource bundle where the one anonymous inner class file is currently located, dispatching the one anonymous inner class file into corresponding associated code resource bundle.
However, Bridges discloses: parsing file name identifying information of the respective class files; determining associated code resource bundles of respective corresponding class files based on parsing results of respective file name identifying information (see [0063]-[0064]; “A bundle-activator header specifies the name of the class used to start and stop the bundle. A bundle header may hold a comma-separated list of category names. Another header defines a comma-separated list of ZIP file path names or directories inside the bundle containing classes and resources”. In order to achieve feature of “the class used to start and stop the bundle”, it is understood to require step/action of determining associated bundle of the corresponding class file).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the process of JAR packages generation for an application from Wei by including forming resource bundles having classes and resources for JAR packages from Bridges, since it would provide “a mechanism to load different versions of the same package and, if desired, supports object-oriented code as well as different file formats, such as the Java Archive File Format (JAR) to package and deploy bundles” (see [0027]-[0028] from Bridges).
In addition, Hou discloses: determining associated bundles of respective corresponding objects; in response to that the associated bundle of one object is inconsistent with a bundle where the object is currently located, dispatching the one object into corresponding associated bundle (see [0044]-[0045]; “ it is determined whether a current group to which the smart device belongs is consistent with the preset target group; if not consistent, proceed to step S403” and “In step S403, when a current group to which the smart device belongs is not consistent with the preset target group, the smart device is transferred from the current group to the preset target group”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the process of grouping classes and resources to form resource bundles from the combination of Wei and Bridges by including re-grouping corresponding objects to correct group from Hou, and thus the combination of Wei, Bridges and Hou would disclose the missing limitations from Wei, since it would provide a mechanism of dynamical grouping or bundling objects based on different needs (see [0052] from Hou; “ according to the determined preset target group, the user is prompted to regroup the grouped smart devices, and when the user selects to regroup, the smart devices can be regrouped. As such, whether to regroup smart devices is determined according to the user's selection, such that the grouping of smart devices is more adapted for the user's needs, facilitating the user to quickly find and operate the concerned smart device from a large number of smart devices in the device list”).
Regarding to Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further the combination of Wei, Bridges and Hou discloses: wherein parsing the file name identifying information of the respective anonymous inner class files comprises:
extracting, according to a preset class file naming format, file source information from respective file name identifying information that identifies source code resource bundles for generating the anonymous inner class files (see [0007], [0072] and [0075] from Wei and [0063] from Bridges; “generate a private method and an internal class corresponding to the expression containing the grammatical sugar”, “the expression containing grammatical sugars is a lambda expression” and “the lambda expression is an anonymous function for implementing the logic of the variable” and “specifies the name of the class used to start and stop the bundle”).
Regarding to Claim 8, Claim 8 is a system claim corresponds to method Claim 1 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above (note: Also see [0017]-[0020] from Wei for the claimed electronic device comprising claimed processors and claimed storage).
Regarding to Claim 9, Claim 9 is a system claim corresponds to method Claim 2 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 2 above.
Regarding to Claim 15, Claim 15 is a system claim corresponds to method Claim 1 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above (note: See [0021] from Wei for claimed product being tangible stored on a computer-readable medium).
Regarding to Claim 16, Claim 16 is a system claim corresponds to method Claim 2 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 2 above.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN 112416303 A, publication date: 2/26/2021, English translation provided by Google Patents, hereafter Wei) in view of Bridges (US 20140280767 A1) and Hou et al. (US 20160316007 A1, hereafter Hou) and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 110825385 A-publication date: 2/21/2020, English translation by Google Patents, hereafter Liu).
Regarding to Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated, the combination of Wei, Bridges and Hou does not disclose: wherein determining the associated code resource bundles of the respective corresponding anonymous inner class files based on the parsing results of the respective file name identifying information comprises: determining, according to respective file source information, whether a file source of a corresponding anonymous inner class file is a base code resource bundle or any adaptive function code resource bundle for the respective anonymous inner class files
However, Liu discloses: determining, according to respective file source information, whether a file source of a corresponding file is a base code resource bundle or any adaptive function code resource bundle for the respective files (see [0018], [0045]-[0049], [0066] and [0118]; “judging whether the current file belongs to a basic package file or not”. Also see [0002]; “The fact Native is one of the most widely applied cross-platform technical frameworks at present, and developers can run corresponding application programs on platforms such as Android, iOS and the like at the same time by only compiling one set of JavaScript codes …. a package which is constructed by a basic package, a service package”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the process of grouping or packing plurality of class files of software program into different groups or bundles from the combination of Wei, Bridges and Hou by including packing plurality of code files of software program into at least basic package and service package from Liu, and thus the combination of Wei, Bridges, Hou and Liu would disclose the missing limitations from the combination of Wei, Bridges and Hou, since “Native is one of the most widely applied cross-platform technical frameworks at present, and developers can run corresponding application programs on platforms such as Android, iOS and the like at the same time” (see [0002] from Liu).
Regarding to Claim 10, Claim 10 is a system claim corresponds to method Claim 3 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 3 above.
Regarding to Claim 17, Claim 17 is a system claim corresponds to method Claim 3 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 3 above.
Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN 112416303 A, publication date: 2/26/2021, English translation provided by Google Patents, hereafter Wei) in view of Bridges (US 20140280767 A1) and Hou et al. (US 20160316007 A1, hereafter Hou) and further in view of Liang et al. (CN 113419734 A, publication date: 6/17/2021, English translation provided by Google Patents, hereafter Liang) and Liu et al. (CN 110825385 A-publication date: 2/21/2020, English translation by Google Patents, hereafter Liu).
Regarding to Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated, the combination of Wei, Bridges and Hou does not disclose: wherein obtaining the respective anonymous inner class files generated after performing class file merging and compiling on the respective class files in the AAR file of the target application program comprises:
calling a preset class file search algorithm before generating a target dex file; and
searching, based on the preset class file search algorithm, for respective anonymous inner class files from a base code resource Jar bundle in an initial dex file determined after performing class file merging and compiling on respective class files in the AAR file.
However, Liang discloses: calling a preset class file search algorithm before generating a target dex file; and searching, based on the preset class file search algorithm, for respective [anonymous inner] class files [from a base code resource Jar bundle] in an initial dex file determined after performing class file merging and compiling on respective class files in the AAR file (see lines [0005], [0008]-[0010]; “acquiring an initial DEX file in an APK file of an application program to be reinforced; converting the specified method class object in the initial DEX file into a C language code to obtain a C language file; generating a target DEX file based on objects except the specified method class object in the initial DEX file”, “The specified method class object includes at least one of … searching a DEX function pool in the initial DEX file based on the function pool index”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the process of programming language compilation and software deployment processes on Android platform from the combination of Wei, Bridges and Hou by including reinforcing software application on Android platform from Liang, since it would provide an improved APK reinforcement mechanism that not only preventing the application program from being tampered but also reducing the code amount in C language file during the reinforcement process (see [0002]-[0004] from Liang).
In addition, Liu discloses: [class] files from a base code resource Jar bundle (see [0018], [0045]-[0049], [0066] and [0118]; “judging whether the current file belongs to a basic package file or not”. Also see [0002]; “The fact Native is one of the most widely applied cross-platform technical frameworks at present, and developers can run corresponding application programs on platforms such as Android, iOS and the like at the same time by only compiling one set of JavaScript codes …. a package which is constructed by a basic package, a service package”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the process of grouping or packing plurality of class files of software program into different groups or bundles from the combination of Wei, Bridges, Hou and Liang by including packing plurality of code files of software program into at least basic package and service package from Liu, and thus the combination of Wei, Bridges, Hou, Liang and Liu would disclose the missing limitations from the combination of Wei, Bridges and Hou, since “Native is one of the most widely applied cross-platform technical frameworks at present, and developers can run corresponding application programs on platforms such as Android, iOS and the like at the same time” (see [0002] from Liu).
Regarding to Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated, the combination of Wei, Bridges and Hou does not disclose: wherein obtaining the respective anonymous inner class files generated after performing class file merging and compiling on the respective class files in the AAR file of the target application program comprises:
calling a preset class file search algorithm before performing final overall bundling on an AAR file of a target application program; and
searching for respective anonymous inner class files based on the preset class file search algorithm from a base code resource dex file that corresponds to the AAR file and is subjected to compiling and code resource dispatching.
However, Liang discloses: calling a preset class file search algorithm before performing final overall bundling on an AAR file of a target application program; and searching for respective [anonymous inner] class files based on the preset class file search algorithm from a [base code resource] dex file that corresponds to the AAR file and is subjected to compiling and code resource dispatching (see lines [0005], [0008]-[0010]; “acquiring an initial DEX file in an APK file of an application program to be reinforced; converting the specified method class object in the initial DEX file into a C language code to obtain a C language file; generating a target DEX file based on objects except the specified method class object in the initial DEX file”, “The specified method class object includes at least one of … searching a DEX function pool in the initial DEX file based on the function pool index”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the process of programming language compilation and software deployment processes on Android platform from the combination of Wei, Bridges and Hou by including reinforcing software application on Android platform from Liang, since it would provide an improved APK reinforcement mechanism that not only preventing the application program from being tampered but also reducing the code amount in C language file during the reinforcement process (see [0002]-[0004] from Liang).
In addition, Liu discloses: [class] files from a base code resource bundle file (see [0018], [0045]-[0049], [0066] and [0118]; “judging whether the current file belongs to a basic package file or not”. Also see [0002]; “The fact Native is one of the most widely applied cross-platform technical frameworks at present, and developers can run corresponding application programs on platforms such as Android, iOS and the like at the same time by only compiling one set of JavaScript codes …. a package which is constructed by a basic package, a service package”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the process of grouping or packing plurality of class files of software program into different groups or bundles from the combination of Wei, Bridges, Hou and Liang by including packing plurality of code files of software program into at least basic package and service package from Liu, and thus the combination of Wei, Bridges, Hou, Liang and Liu would disclose the missing limitations from the combination of Wei, Bridges and Hou, since “Native is one of the most widely applied cross-platform technical frameworks at present, and developers can run corresponding application programs on platforms such as Android, iOS and the like at the same time” (see [0002] from Liu).
Regarding to Claim 11, Claim 11 is a system claim corresponds to method Claim 4 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 4 above.
Regarding to Claim 13, Claim 13 is a system claim corresponds to method Claim 6 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 6 above.
Regarding to Claim 18, Claim 18 is a system claim corresponds to method Claim 4 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 4 above.
Regarding to Claim 20, Claim 20 is a system claim corresponds to method Claim 6 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 6 above.
Claims 5, 7, 12, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN 112416303 A, publication date: 2/26/2021, English translation provided by Google Patents, hereafter Wei) in view of Bridges (US 20140280767 A1), Hou et al. (US 20160316007 A1, hereafter Hou), Liang et al. (CN 113419734 A, publication date: 6/17/2021, English translation provided by Google Patents, hereafter Liang) and Liu et al. (CN 110825385 A-publication date: 2/21/2020, English translation by Google Patents, hereafter Liu) and further in view of Yoon (US 20050289164 A1).
Regarding to Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 4 is incorporated and further the combination of Wei, Bridges, Hou, Liang and Liu discloses: wherein dispatching the one anonymous inner class file into the corresponding associated code resource bundle comprises: moving the one anonymous inner class file to a corresponding adaptive function Jar bundle from base code resource Jar bundle (see [0065]-[0069] from Wei, [0002] and [0046] from Liu; “adding the private methods and the inner class to the patch class includes: the private method is copied/moved into the patch class and the inner class is copied/moved into the patch class” and “The fact Native is one of the most widely applied cross-platform technical frameworks at present, and developers can run corresponding application programs on platforms such as Android, iOS and the like at the same time by only compiling one set of JavaScript codes …. a package which is constructed by a basic package, a service package”. Also see [0044]-[0045] from Hou; “when a current group to which the smart device belongs is not consistent with the preset target group, the smart device is transferred from the current group to the preset target group”. Note: since the implementation of Native technology discussed from Liu, the code resource bundle from the new combination being either one of basic package, i.e., claimed base code resource Jar bundle, or service package, i.e., claimed adaptive function Jar bundle, one of the reasonable embodiments from the new combination system would moving a corresponding anonymous inner class file from current located base code resource Jar bundle into a corresponding adaptive function Jar bundle).
The combination of Wei, Bridges, Hou, Liang and Liu does not disclose: moving the one anonymous inner class file to a corresponding adaptive function Jar bundle from base code resource Jar bundle is performed in a manner of generating, in the corresponding adaptive function Jar bundle, an anonymous inner class file that is the same as the one anonymous inner class file, and deleting the one anonymous inner class file from the base code resource Jar bundle.
However, Yoon discloses: wherein dispatching the one file into the corresponding associated location comprises: generating, in a corresponding target location, an file that is the same as the one file, and deleting the one file from the origin location (see [0067]; “When a file moves, a file in a source folder is deleted and the same file is created in a destination folder”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the process of moving anonymous inner class file from current located base code resource Jar bundle into a corresponding adaptive function Jar bundle from the combination of Wei, Bridges, Hou, Liang and Liu by including moving a file from source location to target location via creating a copy of the same file at the target location and deleting the original file at the source location from Yoon, and thus the combination of Wei, Bridges, Hou, Liang, Liu and Yoon would disclose the missing limitations from the combination of Wei, Bridges, Hou, Liang and Liu, since it would provide a mechanism of saving storage location without maintaining the same file at the source location (see [0067] from Yoon).
Regarding to Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 6 is incorporated and further the combination of Wei, Bridges, Hou, Liang and Liu discloses: wherein dispatching the one anonymous inner class file into the corresponding associated code resource bundle comprises: moving the one anonymous inner class file to a corresponding adaptive function dex file from the base code resource dex file (see [0065]-[0069] from Wei, [0002] and [0046] from Liu; “adding the private methods and the inner class to the patch class includes: the private method is copied/moved into the patch class and the inner class is copied/moved into the patch class” and “The fact Native is one of the most widely applied cross-platform technical frameworks at present, and developers can run corresponding application programs on platforms such as Android, iOS and the like at the same time by only compiling one set of JavaScript codes …. a package which is constructed by a basic package, a service package”. Also see [0005], [0008]-[0010] from Liang and [0044]-[0045] from Hou; “converting the specified method class object in the initial DEX file into a C language code to obtain a C language file” and “when a current group to which the smart device belongs is not consistent with the preset target group, the smart device is transferred from the current group to the preset target group”. Note: since the implementation of Native technology discussed from Liu and the APK reinforcement technology discussed at Liang, the code resource bundle from the new combination being either one of basic package, i.e., claimed base code resource dex file, or service package, i.e., claimed adaptive function dex file, one of the reasonable embodiments from the new combination system would moving a corresponding anonymous inner class file from current located base code resource dex file into a corresponding adaptive function dex file).
The combination of Wei, Bridges, Hou, Liang and Liu does not disclose: moving the one anonymous inner class file to a corresponding adaptive function dex file from the base code resource dex file is performed in a manner of generating, in the corresponding adaptive function dex file, an anonymous inner class file that is the same as the one anonymous inner class file, and deleting the one anonymous inner class file from the base code resource dex file.
However, Yoon discloses: wherein dispatching the one file into the corresponding associated location comprises: generating, in a corresponding target location, an file that is the same as the one file, and deleting the one file from the origin location (see [0067]; “When a file moves, a file in a source folder is deleted and the same file is created in a destination folder”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the process of moving anonymous inner class file from current located base code resource dex file into a corresponding adaptive function dex file from the combination of Wei, Bridges, Hou, Liang and Liu by including moving a file from source location to target location via creating a copy of the same file at the target location and deleting the original file at the source location from Yoon, and thus the combination of Wei, Bridges, Hou, Liang, Liu and Yoon would disclose the missing limitations from the combination of Wei, Bridges, Hou, Liang and Liu, since it would provide a mechanism of saving storage location without maintaining the same file at the source location (see [0067] from Yoon).
Regarding to Claim 12, Claim 12 is a a system claim corresponds to method Claim 5 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 5 above.
Regarding to Claim 14, Claim 14 is a system claim corresponds to method Claim 7 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 7 above.
Regarding to Claim 19, Claim 19 is a system claim corresponds to method Claim 5 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 5 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wayda et al. (US 20130166670 A1) disclose: the term transfer is used to broadly encompass the transfer of data copied from a source location without deleting the data from the source, as well as the migration of data from the source to a target location that deletes the data at the source (see [0030]).
Do (US 20150058289 A1) discloses: the original data items at the source location are eventually deleted, so the data items only exist at the destination location. In this case, the migration operation essentially “moves” the data items from the source location to the destination location (see [0064]).
Kismartoni et al. (US 20200241846 A1) discloses: When developing applications in a managed package, which may be a base package or a package extension, it may be necessary to refer to the namespace associated with the managed package in some dynamic fashion (see [0021]) and there may be limitations on the instantiation of classes within each of the namespaces in a managed package. Inside of managed packages, there are limitations on how classes are instantiated using the System.type.forName(namespace, classname).newInstance( ) convention (see [0022]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHI CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0805. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:30AM to 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, April Y Blair can be reached on 571-270-1014. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Zhi Chen/
Patent Examiner, AU2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights