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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending per Applicant’s 03/29/2024 filing with the USPTO and examined herein.
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 (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 1-20 are to a method (process).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Where certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). Where mental processes relates to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
1. A method for generating a set of child issues based on a parent issue, the method comprising:
cause display of the parent issue in a graphical user interface of an issue tracking system;
in response to a user input provided to the graphical user interface, the user input including a request for a set of subtasks based on the parent issue, identify a resource identifier using content extracted from the parent issue;
access a first node of a content graph using the resource identifier;
identify a first set of nodes having an edge with the first node in the content graph;
generate a prompt comprising:
a predefined query prompt text including a request to rank nodes and a completion criterion; and
content extracted from the first set of nodes;
provide the prompt to an external generative output engine using an application programming interface call;
obtain a generative response from the external generative output engine;
in response to the generative response indicating that the completion criterion has not been satisfied, identify a next node of the first set of nodes using the generative response and identify a second set of nodes having an edge with the next node;
in response to the generative response indicating that the completion criterion has been satisfied, generate a set of suggested subtasks using the generative response;
cause display in the graphical user interface of the set of suggested subtasks; and
in response to an additional user input, cause a set of new child issues to be generated in the issue tracking system, each respective child issue of the set of new child issues corresponding to a respective task of the set of suggested subtasks.
The claims are to computer aided problem solving. Where the user might ask the computer (user input provided to the graphical user interface) - how do I “add a smooth integration with a third party authentication system within the issue tracking platform to make it easier for users to access the platform” (Spec. [30])? The system analyzes the input to determine what to ask or look for in the system (external generative output engine). The engine determine how or what to suggest as suggested steps to take to achieve the user’s request (set of suggested subtasks/new child issues corresponding to a respective task of the set of suggested subtasks). For example “the generative output engine receives the parent issues . . . , subtasks may include developing an API endpoint to process the third party authentication, ensure code meets security standards, develop Javascript code, and the like . . . API endpoint which the user can leverage to make work more efficient” (Spec. [98]). The claims receive information, analyze the information, return a result therefore the claims are found to be direct towards a mental process, see also Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Further the claims are directed to the managing personal behavior under the abstract idea of certain method of organizing human activity, which includes certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection II. Conversation or brain-storming an issue such as “integration with a third party authentication system” (Spec. [30]) is similar to the steps a human might take outside of the computing environment, which is similar to Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The displaying and inputting elements are determined to be steps of data-gather which are found to insignificant extra solution activity.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. While not expressly claim the specification provides, “Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer")” and “set of host servers 102 can be supporting infrastructure for one or more backend applications” (Spec. [65] and [66]). These elements are found to be well-known or conventional
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhattacharjee et al (US 2019/0258636 A1).
Claim 1
Bhattacharjee method for generating a set of child issues based on a parent issue, the method comprising (Bhattacharjee abstract “methods are described for processing records associated with a query that identifies an association between two data fields. ”):
cause display of the parent issue in a graphical user interface of an issue tracking system (Bhattacharjee [110] “queries received by the data intake and query” and [152] “monitoring component 112 is initiated or triggered as the application is launched . . . such as sending a network request or displaying a particular interface.”);
in response to a user input provided to the graphical user interface, the user input including a request for a set of subtasks based on the parent issue, identify a resource identifier using content extracted from the parent issue (Bhattacharjee [366] “the query can be receive as a user generated query entered into search bar of a graphical user search interface” and [318] “Data models and their objects can be designed by knowledge managers in an organization, and they can enable downstream users to quickly focus on a specific set of data. A user iteratively applies a model development tool (not shown in FIG. 8A) to prepare a query that defines a subset of events and assigns an object name to that subset. A child subset is created by further limiting a query that generated a parent subset”);
access a first node of a content graph using the resource identifier (Bhattacharjee [110] “queries received by the data intake and query system can be propagated to the network of distributed nodes”);
identify a first set of nodes having an edge with the first node in the content graph;
generate a prompt comprising (Bhattacharjee [642] “generate a logical directed acyclic graph (DAG) based on the query . . . seven vertices and six edges, with each edge directed from one vertex to another” also see [656] and fig. 35 where vertices are the equivalent of nodes):
a predefined query prompt text including a request to rank nodes and a completion criterion (Bhattacharjee [133] “machine data can have a predefined format, where data items with specific data formats are stored at predefined locations in the data”); and
content extracted from the first set of nodes (Bhattacharjee [511] “nodes 236 collect the partial search results extracted from the external data sources ”);
provide the prompt to an external generative output engine using an application programming interface call (Bhattacharjee [177] “ an interface application installed at a computer of the external result provider that ensures proper communication between the search support system and the external result provider” and [656] “pushing processing to the edges (e.g., to external data sources, etc.)”);
obtain a generative response from the external generative output engine (Bhattacharjee [181] “streaming mode returns search results in real time, with minimal processing, in response to the search request. The reporting mode provides results of a search request with processing of the search results prior to providing them to the requesting search head, which in turn provides results to the requesting client device”);
in response to the generative response indicating that the completion criterion has not been satisfied, identify a next node of the first set of nodes using the generative response and identify a second set of nodes having an edge with the next node (Bhattacharjee [432] “second search phase may be executed by the worker nodes 214 to extract and collect partial search results from the external data sources” and [813] “a second worker node 3306, query coordinator 3304 can quickly determine (e.g., without referencing timestamps of information) that all information identified by the first worker node 3306 in response to a search occurs in time prior to information identified by the second worker node 3306 in response to the search”);
in response to the generative response indicating that the completion criterion has been satisfied, generate a set of suggested subtasks using the generative response (Bhattacharjee [234] “values are identified for a particular filter criterion (e.g., multiple sources for a source filter criterion), the system can identify event references located in at least one of the entries corresponding to the multiple values and in all other entries identified by the filter criteria” and [177] “ display the results or a processed set of results based on the returned results to the respective client device”);
cause display in the graphical user interface of the set of suggested subtasks (Bhattacharjee [730] “the query coordinator 3304 communicates the results. In some embodiments, the query coordinator 3304 communicates the results to the search head 210, such as a search process generated by the search to handle the query. In certain cases, the query coordinator 3304 communicates the results to the search process master 3302 or client device” also see [538]); and
in response to an additional user input, cause a set of new child issues to be generated in the issue tracking system, each respective child issue of the set of new child issues corresponding to a respective task of the set of suggested subtasks (Bhattacharjee [315-316]).
Claim 2
Bhattacharjee teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, wherein the prompt is a first prompt and further comprising:
in accordance with the completion criterion not being satisfied, generate a second prompt comprising (Bhattacharjee [234]):
the predefined query prompt text including the request to rank nodes and the completion criterion (Bhattacharjee [692] and [793]); and
content extracted from the second set of nodes (Bhattacharjee [437]);
obtain an updated generative response from the external generative output engine (Bhattacharjee [348] and [1185]);
in response to the updated generative response indicating that the completion criterion has been satisfied, generate the set of suggested subtasks using the updated generative response (Bhattacharjee [627] and [652]); and
cause display in the graphical user interface of the set of suggested subtasks (Bhattacharjee [284] and [325]).
Claim 3
Bhattacharjee teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, further comprising:
in accordance with identifying the first set of nodes, evaluate permissions with respect to a current user providing the user input (Bhattacharjee [892] and [962]);
in response to the current user satisfying a permissions criterion, query a database to obtain content from each node of the first set of nodes, the content of each node corresponding to a respective platform (Bhattacharjee [892]); and
hydrating the prompt to include the queried content (Bhattacharjee [573] and [653]).
Claim 4
Bhattacharjee teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 3, wherein the prompt further comprises a request to select a top ranking from the first set of nodes (Bhattacharjee [277] and [1319-1320]).
Claim 5
Bhattacharjee teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, wherein the content graph is generated using content from an issue tracking platform (Bhattacharjee [382]), a content collaboration platform (Bhattacharjee [110]), a project management platform (Bhattacharjee [131]), and an external platform (Bhattacharjee [518]).
Claim 6
Bhattacharjee teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, wherein each suggested subtask of the set of suggested subtasks includes a reference to an existing issue or an existing document (Bhattacharjee [276] and [419]).
Claim 7
Bhattacharjee teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, wherein the prompt further comprises metadata comprising an issue type corresponding to each node of the first set of nodes (Bhattacharjee [294] and [808]).
Claim 8
Bhattacharjee teaches a method for automatically generating subtasks in an issue tracking platform based on a parent issue and context extracted from a plurality of platforms (Bhattacharjee abstract and [104]), the method comprising:
receiving a user input comprising the parent task of the task and a request to create a list of subtasks based on the parent task of the task (Bhattacharjee [280] and [374]);
in response to the request to create the list of subtasks, retrieving a first resource identifier based on data from the task (Bhattacharjee [276] and [419]);
querying a content graph using the first resource identifier to obtain a second resource identifier, the second resource identifier having an edge relationship with respect to the first resource identifier, the content graph generated from content from at least two of the issue tracking platform, a content collaboration platform, or a project management platform; generating a first prompt including the parent task, content from the first resource identifier, content from the second resource identifier, and predefined content having a completion criterion (Bhattacharjee [64], [110], [277], [646]);
submitting the first prompt to an external generative output engine using an application programming interface call (Bhattacharjee [692], [793], and [871]);
obtaining a first generative response from the external generative output engine (Bhattacharjee [173-174]);
in response to the first generative response indicating that the completion criterion has not been satisfied, querying the content graph using the second resource identifier to obtain a third resource identifier, the second resource identifier having an edge relationship with respect to the first resource identifier (Bhattacharjee [233] and [736-737]);
generating a second prompt including at least a portion of the content from the first prompt and content from the third resource identifier (Bhattacharjee [793]);
in response to receiving a second generative response from the external generative output engine indicating that the completion criterion has been satisfied, analyzing the second generative response to identify a suggested subtask (Bhattacharjee [623]); and
causing display, in a graphical user interface, of the suggested subtask, the suggested subtask including a reference to a particular document or issue (Bhattacharjee [110] and [152).
Claim 9
Bhattacharjee teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 8, wherein:
the second resource identifier is a plurality of second resource identifiers, each second resource identifier representing a respective node in the content graph (Bhattacharjee [382] and [415]); and
the first prompt further comprises a request to rank the plurality of second resource identifiers (Bhattacharjee [328]).
Claim 10
Bhattacharjee teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 9, wherein:
the first prompt further comprises a filter criterion (Bhattacharjee [64], [110], [277], [646]); and
in response to receiving the first prompt comprising content from the plurality of second resource identifiers, selecting a sub-plurality of second resource identifiers satisfying the filter criterion (Bhattacharjee [518] and [652]).
Claim 11
Bhattacharjee teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 8, further comprising: causing a child issue to be generated in the issue tracking platform, the generated child issue corresponding to the suggested subtask (Bhattacharjee [366] and [318]).
Claim 12
Bhattacharjee teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 11, wherein the child issue is associated with an issue corresponding to the first resource identifier (Bhattacharjee [137] and [1323]).
Claim 13
Bhattacharjee teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 11, further comprising: updating the content graph to include the generated child issue (Bhattacharjee [110]).
Claim 14
Bhattacharjee teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 8, further comprising:
in accordance with identifying the second resource identifier, evaluating permissions with respect to a current user providing the user input (Bhattacharjee [328]);
in response to the current user satisfying a permissions criterion, querying a database to obtain content corresponding to the second resource identifier, the second resource identifier associated with the content collaboration platform (Bhattacharjee [210] and [892]); and
hydrating the first prompt to include the queried content (Bhattacharjee [892-893]).
Claim 15
Bhattacharjee teaches a method for generating a set of child issues based on a parent issue using generative tools (Bhattacharjee abstract and [104]), the method comprising:
causing display of the parent issue in a graphical user interface of an issue tracking system; in response to a textual input provided to the graphical user interface, the textual input including at least a reference to the parent issue (Bhattacharjee [110] and [152]);
receiving a request to create a set of subtasks based on the parent issue; identifying a resource identifier based on data from the parent issue (Bhattacharjee [280] and [374]);
accessing a first node of a content graph corresponding to the resource identifier (Bhattacharjee [642] and [656]);
identifying, using the content graph, at least one related node having an edge with respect to the first node (Bhattacharjee [642] and [656]);
obtaining content corresponding to the at least one related node from a respective platform (Bhattacharjee [892]);
generating a prompt comprising (Bhattacharjee [277] and [1319-1320]:
a predefined query prompt text including a completion criterion Bhattacharjee [64], [110], [277], [646]); and
content obtained from the at least one related node (Bhattacharjee [892]);
sending the prompt to an external generative output engine (Bhattacharjee [173-174]);
obtaining a generative response from the external generative output engine including an indication that the completion criterion is not satisfied (Bhattacharjee [233] and [736-737]);
obtaining subsequent nodes from the content graph based on a prior node (Bhattacharjee [181]);
iteratively sending subsequent prompts using content obtained from the subsequent nodes, until a subsequent generative response indicates satisfaction of the completion criterion (Bhattacharjee [152]);
in response to satisfying the completion criterion, generate a set of suggested subtasks using the subsequent generative response content (Bhattacharjee [177] and [656]); and
cause display in the graphical user interface of the set of suggested subtasks content (Bhattacharjee [177] and [656]).
Claim 16
Bhattacharjee teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 15, further comprising:
in accordance with identifying the at least one related node and the subsequent nodes, evaluating permissions with respect to a current user(Bhattacharjee);
in response to the current user satisfying a permissions criterion, querying a database to obtain content from each node of the at least one related node and the subsequent nodes, the content of each node corresponding to a respective platform (Bhattacharjee); and
hydrating each subsequent prompt to include the queried content (Bhattacharjee [177] and [656]).
Claim 17
Bhattacharjee teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 15, wherein the content graph is generated using data from an issue tracking platform, a content collaboration platform, a software management platform, and a software development platform (Bhattacharjee [511]).
Claim 18
Bhattacharjee teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 15, wherein a first node of the at least one related node is a pull request (Bhattacharjee [318]).
Claim 19
Bhattacharjee teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 15, wherein the external generative output engine is a large language model (Bhattacharjee [279] and [534]).
Claim 20
Bhattacharjee teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 19, wherein a branch of nodes is excluded from a subtask generation based on a relationship between a parent node and a first subsequent node (Bhattacharjee [279] and [534]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brown et al (US 2026/0004246 A1) teaches an action (e.g., an action using the generative output engine), may be used to update a parent page in a hierarchy of pages. For example, if a user creates a page in a particular group of pages, a summary or other parent page may be created or updated with information from the newly created child page.
McKenzie et al (US 2026/0003579 A1) teaches a large language model and based on the context data, one or more candidate software feature development sub-tasks for the issue document by applying the context data to the large language model; generate one or more refined software feature development sub-tasks based on the one or more candidate software feature development sub-tasks; and generate one or more child issue documents within the software application corresponding to the one or more refined software feature development sub-tasks.
Khemani et al (US 12,505,132 B2) teaches hierarchical navigational tree of elements 506 may indicate parent-child relationships between documents or pages in a document space. Each document space may have a unique or distinct set of documents or pages, each related to each other, as indicated by indentations or other visual indicia in the hierarchical navigational tree of elements.
Schrader et al (US 2025/0110786 A1) teaches Computer-implemented systems and methods are disclosed, including systems and methods for automatically solving computational tasks or problems. A computer-implemented method may include: providing an agent service that utilizes a plurality of agents to process one or more tasks; receiving, by a first agent, a request to handle a first task; obtaining, by the first agent, a first accessory to handle the first task; assigning, by the first agent, at least a portion of the first task to a second agent; sharing, by the first agent, the first accessory to the second agent; and processing, by the second agent, at least the portion of the first task using the first accessory to generate a processing result.
Williams et al (US 2024/0281410 A1) teaches inference request to determine a series of subtasks, which may be useful to process that task. For example, where the task asks for the best time to send an email to a particular recipient, the subtasks may relate to determining the likelihood that the particular recipient will view the email at certain times. For example, a first subtask may relate to determining that likelihood at a first time of the day, a second subtask may relate to determining that likelihood at a second time of the day, and so forth.
Napolitano et al "On Leveraging Multi-Page Element Relations in Visually-Rich Documents," (2024) teaches a document d and a question Q posed in natural language on d, the V Q A task aims to generate a pertinent answer a. We focus on a VQA task where answer generation is leveraged by pairwise element relations R such as parent relations (ep is the parent of ec), child parent relations (ec is the child of ep), or sibling relations (e1 is linked to e2)’ Let r be a pairwise element relation instance (e.g., Table 2 is part of Section 1), we address the VQA subtask of answering a natural language question q on r (e.g., To which section does Table 2 belong to ?). The ultimate goal is to preserve the relation between the elements involved in the underlying question and those mentioned in the answer.
Maczejka et al (US 2024/0211884 A1) teaches title 302 and idea description 303 for the idea issue may also be displayed. The title may be entered by a user of a client system 102 when creating the idea issue in the project management system 104, thereby allowing for example a text title identifying the subject matter of the idea for the idea issue. Similarly, the idea description 303 may also be entered by a user, to allow more detail to be entered in relation to the idea issue. The idea issue may also include a checklist 304. The checklist 304 may include tasks associated with the idea issue, which tasks may be predetermined for idea issue types within the project management system 104 and/or may be user entered. The idea issue may also include a set of idea links.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623