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 is the initial Office action based on the application filed on April 12, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are presently pending in the application have been examined below, of which, claims 1, 19, and 20 are presented in independent form.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, provided that 35 USC § 112(b) rejection is overcome.
Claim 16 is considered allowable by virtue of its dependence on the rewritten allowable independent claim 15 including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 to claim 1, the claim first introduces “a method for application creation” in the preamble, but subsequently refers the term without the definite article “the” in the claim limitations “adding the first application as a target processing entity for application creation” and “determining configuration information for application creation”, leaving unclear whether the later references are intended to refer to the same previously introduced concept. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims 2-18 also inherit the same deficiency. Furthermore, claims 19 and 20 have the same issue in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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 1-4, 6-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0321918 (hereinafter " McClory”) in view of US 11,307,852 (hereinafter “Hess”).
In the following claim analysis, Applicant’s claim limitations are presented in bold text, the Examiner’s explanations, notes, and remarks are enclosed in square brackets; and emphasized portions are underlined.
As to claim 1, McClory discloses A method for application creation (McClory, Abstract, system, apparatus, article of manufacture, method, and/or computer program product embodiments for creating and managing a software application), comprising:
based on a selection of a first application, adding the first application as a target processing entity for application creation (McClory, ¶ 43, to create an application … the development device 104-1 may include an application orchestration client application 214 and application source code information 260 may generally include source code for the application and application build configuration for the application; ¶ 47, at least one application template name that identifies a code template [a selection of a first application] used to generate the initial source code for the application [the first application]; ¶ 54, the application orchestration client application 214 may be configured to locally generate the application source code information (e.g., application source code information 260 of development device 104-1) based on an identified application template stored in a template data store);
determining configuration information for application creation, the configuration information indicating a plurality of processing entities (McClory, ¶ 28, The AADDOMA (Accelerated Application Development, Deployment, Orchestration, and Management Application ) 162 may receive application creation configuration information from the one or development devices 104. And in response, the AADDOMA 162 may create, build, test, and deploy one or more container applications 136 and/or native applications 138 to a designated infrastructure services provider system; ¶ 34, the load balancer devices 118 may be generally configured to route or distribute incoming network traffic among multiple server devices 122, guest operating systems 132, and/or container applications 136 and/or native applications 138; ¶ 47, the application creation configuration information may include, without limitation, the location of an application source code data store configured to store application source code information, application source code access information for accessing private application source code data stores, a deployment location of the application, a name of the application, a brief description of the application … at least one application template name that identifies a code template used to generate the initial source code for the application) and jump information associated with the plurality of processing entities (McClory, ¶ 34, the load balancer devices 118 may be generally configured to route [jump] or distribute incoming network traffic among multiple server devices 122 [Examiner’s Remarks: The routing information used by the load balancer specifies when a request should be forward from one processing entity to another processing entity, which corresponds to jump information associated with the plurality of processing entities]), the jump information indicating at least that a first processing entity of the plurality of processing entities is configured to determine whether to [route] to a second processing entity to process a request (McClory, ¶ 35, the load balancer devices 118 may be configured to route and distribute an incoming HTTP request received from a consumer device (e.g., consumer device 108-1, 108-2, 108-3, etc.) via network 150 to an appropriate server device (e.g., server device 122-1); ¶ 36, the load balancer application may be configured to receive incoming network traffic and route or distribute incoming network traffic among multiple server devices 122, guest operating systems 132, and/or container applications 136 and/or native applications 138 [Examiner’s Remarks: The load balancer represents a processing entity that determines whether a request should be routed for further processing]), the plurality of processing entities comprising the target processing entity (McClory, ¶ 35, the load balancer devices 118 may be configured to route and distribute an incoming HTTP request received from a consumer device (e.g., consumer device 108-1, 108-2, 108-3, etc.) [including the processing unit corresponding to the target application] ; ¶ 54, the application orchestration client application 214 may be configured to locally generate the application source code information (e.g., application source code information 260 of development device 104-1) based on an identified application template); and
creating a target application based on the configuration information (McClory, ¶ 28, The AADDOMA 162 may receive application creation configuration information from the one or development devices 104. And in response, the AADDOMA 162 may create, build, test, and deploy one or more container applications 136 and/or native applications 138 to a designated infrastructure services provider system).
McClory does not appear to explicitly disclose a first processing entity configured to determine whether to switch to a second processing entity. However, in an analogous art to the claimed invention in the field of software technology, Hess teaches a first processing entity configured to determine whether to switch to a second processing entity (Hess, col. 9, ln. 45-47, The module management system 102 may determine that both datasets could be redirected [switched] to the third module; col. 20, ln.32-36, redirecting [switching], by the processing device responsive to determining that the first output dataset is available before the second output dataset, the first output dataset to the third module of the plurality of modules).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of McClory with the teaching taught by Hess. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the process for deploying, configuring, and updating software applications to help ensure maximum optimization, security, and compatibility within a computing network (Hess, col. 1, ln. 15-24).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. McClory as modified further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining configuration information comprises: determining a node connection graph (Hess, col. 12, ln. 20-32, FIG. 4 is a block diagram of a dependency graph (sometimes referred to as, an execution order, a workflow, or a dependency tree) of modules [nodes]), the node connection graph comprising a plurality of nodes, each node corresponding to a respective processing entity of the plurality of processing entities (Hess, col. 12, ln. 20-32, The dependency graph 400 shows the order in which a plurality of modules receive information (e.g., input datasets), execute tasks, and provide information (e.g., output datasets) based on their connections. The graph 400 includes modules 426a, 426b, 426c, 426d, 426e, 426f, 426g, 426h (collectively referred to as, modules 426) … The graph 400 includes connection 402, 404, 406, 408, 410, 412, 414 (collectively referred to as, connections 402-414), wherein each node connection in the node connection graph indicates a jump relationship between nodes (Hess, Fig. 4, col. 13, ln. 4-15, each of the connections 402-414 shown in FIG. 4 may be an indirect connection between an output of a first module 426 and an input of a second module 426, such that the output dataset from a first module 426 passes to the input of second module 426 because a computing device (e.g., the module management system 102) must receive the output dataset from the first module 426 and redirect [jump] the output dataset to the second module 426. In some embodiments, the module management system 102 redirects [jumps] the output data from a first module 426 to an input of the second module 426 based on an execution order or a plurality of mappings associated with modules 426); and determining the configuration information based on the node connection graph (Hess, Fig. 4, col. 13, ln. 15-20, the module management system 102 determines the execution order or the plurality of mappings [as part of the configuration info] for the modules 426 based on the plurality of input requirements associated with modules 426 and/or the plurality of output requirements associated with modules 426).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of McClory with the teaching taught by Hess. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to automatically generate a dependency graph (e.g., a workflow) based on input and outputs requirements of information that includes a reduction in networking resources needed to execute a process, as well as, a decrease in network congestion and power consumption for the overall network infrastructure (Hess, col. 2, ln. 59-65).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. McClory as modified further discloses The method of claim 2, wherein adding the first application as a target processing entity for application creation comprises: adding to the node connection graph a first node corresponding to the first application (Hess, col. 6, ln. 1-7, the module management system 102 may replace the module 126a with module 126c [as an added node] by removing the connection from module 126a and re-attaching the connection to module 126c). The module management system 102 may be configured to seamlessly replace (e.g., swap, switch) a parent module with a different parent module without the child module ever even knowing that the parent module was replaced). The motivation to combine the references is the same as set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. McClory as modified further discloses The method of claim 2, further comprising: presenting attribute information of the first application, the attribute information comprising at least one of: identification information, overview information, or release information (McClory, ¶ 47, the application creation configuration information may include, without limitation, the location of an application source code data store configured to store application source code information, application source code access information for accessing private application source code data stores, a deployment location of the application, a name of the application, a brief description of the application, creator's name for the application, the creator's credentials (e.g., creator's email address, creator's full name, creator's phone number, creator's organization title, etc.) associated with the application, version information for the application, an organization associated with the application, the software architecture information of the application, the development stack information associated with the application, at least one application template name that identifies a code template used to generate the initial source code for the application, or any combination of thereof).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. McClory as modified further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein adding the first application as a target processing entity for application creation comprises: presenting a set of candidate applications based on a received adding request (McClory, Fig. 4, ¶ 126, at stage 402 by identifying an application template [inherently based on a received request] … The application template may define one or more code styles and application dependencies for the software application, which may be used to automatically generate application source code … more than one application template may be identified); and based on the selection of the first application from the set of candidate applications, adding the first application as the target processing entity for application creation (McClory, ¶ 127, At stage 404, application creation configuration information for a new software application may be determined based on the identified application template; ¶ 128, At stage 406, application source code information (e.g., source code of the software application to be created) may be generated based on the application creation configuration information; ¶ 134, a build of the application source code information may be initiated to generate the software application), wherein the set of candidate applications comprises at least one of: an application created by a current user (McClory, ¶ 134, the generated application source code information may first be retrieved [created by a current user] from the application source code data store, for example by pulling the current version of the application source code information from the master or mainline branch); or an application released by another user for which the current user has a predetermined authority.
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. McClory as modified further discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a first configuration operation associated with the first processing entity, the first configuration operation indicating a first condition for switching from the first processing entity to the second processing entity (Hess, col. 5, ln. 61-63, The module management system 102 may be configured to seamlessly replace (e.g., swap, switch) a parent module with a different parent module), wherein the first configuration operation comprises inputting a textual content for indicating the first condition (Hess, col. 5, ln. 35-63, a module 126 may be configured to receive an input dataset and determine whether the module 126 has a capability to generate an output dataset of a particular output requirement based on the input dataset).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of McClory with the teaching taught by Hess. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to seamlessly replace (e.g., swap, switch) a parent module with a different parent module without the child module ever even knowing that the parent module was replaced (Hess, col. 5, ln. 61-65).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. McClory as modified further discloses The method of claim 7, further comprising: creating a jump plug-in corresponding to the first condition, the jump plug-in allowing the first processing entity to switch to the second processing entity by invoking the jump plug-in (Hess, col. 5-6, ln. 61-7, The module management system 102 may be configured to seamlessly replace (e.g., swap, switch) a parent module with a different parent module … module 126a may be the parent module to module 126b because there is a connection between the output of module 126a and the input of module 126b. While in this configuration, the module management system 102 may replace the module 126a with module 126c by removing the connection from module 126a and re-attaching the connection to module 126c such that the connection now exists between module 126a and module 126c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of McClory with the teaching taught by Hess. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to seamlessly replace (e.g., swap, switch) a parent module with a different parent module without the child module ever even knowing that the parent module was replaced (Hess, col. 5, ln. 61-65).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. McClory as modified further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein whether the first processing entity switches to the second processing entity is determined based on description information of the second processing entity (Hess, col. 5-6, ln. 61-7, The module management system 102 may be configured to seamlessly replace (e.g., swap, switch) a parent module with a different parent module … module 126a may be the parent module to module 126b because there is a connection between the output of module 126a and the input of module 126b. While in this configuration, the module management system 102 may replace the module 126a with module 126c by removing the connection from module 126a and re-attaching the connection to module 126c such that the connection now exists between module 126a and module 126c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of McClory with the teaching taught by Hess. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to seamlessly replace (e.g., swap, switch) a parent module with a different parent module without the child module ever even knowing that the parent module was replaced (Hess, col. 5, ln. 61-65).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. McClory as modified further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein: during processing a target request by the target application, in response to the target application switching from the first processing entity to the second processing entity to process the target request, context information associated with the first processing entity is provided to the second processing entity for processing the target request (McClory, ¶ 35, the load balancer devices 118 may be configured to route and distribute an incoming HTTP request received from a consumer device (e.g., consumer device 108-1, 108-2, 108-3, etc.) via network 150 to an appropriate server device (e.g., server device 122-1); ¶ 36, the load balancer application may be configured to receive incoming network traffic and route or distribute incoming network traffic among multiple server devices 122, guest operating systems 132, and/or container applications 136 and/or native applications 138; ¶ 34, the load balancer devices 118 may be generally configured to route or distribute incoming network traffic among multiple server devices 122, guest operating systems 132, and/or container applications 136 and/or native applications 138. The routing and distribution of incoming requests may be determined based on network and transport layer protocols (e.g., port number, IP address, etc.) and/or application layer data (e.g., HTTP header, Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) [context information], etc.)).
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. McClory as modified further discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: presenting update information associated with the target processing entity (Hess, col. 9, ln. 15-24, The module management system 102 may be configured to redirect (shown in FIG. 1 as, “Redirected Module Output Data”) the output dataset that it receives from each module 126 to the inputs of one or more of the other modules 126 based on the plurality of mappings (sometimes referred to as, plurality of connections). For example, the module management system 102 may update the plurality of mappings to indicate that the output of a first module (e.g., module 126a) is mapped to the input of a second module (e.g., module 126b), the update information indicating at least one updated version associated with the first application (McClory, ¶ 47, the application creation configuration information may include, without limitation, the location of an application source code data store configured to store application source code information, application source code access information for accessing private application source code data stores, a deployment location of the application, a name of the application, a brief description of the application, creator's name for the application, the creator's credentials (e.g., creator's email address, creator's full name, creator's phone number, creator's organization title, etc.) associated with the application, version information for the application); and associating, based on a received update request, a target updated version of the first application with the target processing entity, and wherein the update information further indicates whether the at least one update version is allowed to be added as a processing entity (McClory, ¶ 72, the application registry component 312-2 may be generally configured to manage and visually present a data store of indices of an application developer's applications and associated components … the application registry component 312-2 may be generally configured to store links or references to information for one or more applications and associated components. The information may include, without limitation, location of endpoints of an application and/or associated components for retrieval of telemetry information, mappings for retrieval of configuration information, deployment versions [allowed to be added as a processing entity] and identifier of the application and/or associated components). The motivation to combine the references is the same as set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. McClory as modified further discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: presenting a plurality of versions associated with the first application based on a management request for the target processing entity (McClory, ¶ 127, application creation configuration information for a new software application may be determined based on the identified application template [as a management request] … the application creation configuration information may include, without limitation, the location of an application source code data store configured to store application source code information … a name of the application, a brief description of the application, … version information for the application; ¶ 126, identifying an application template … The application template may define one or more code styles and application dependencies for the software application, which may be used to automatically generate application source code … more than one application template may be identified [Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that a plurality of versions associated with the first application once different application templates are selected]), the plurality of versions comprising at least one historical version of the first application (McClory, ¶ 134, the generated application source code information may first be retrieved from the application source code data store, for example by pulling the current version of the application source code information from the master or mainline branch); and based on a selection of a target version among the plurality of versions, associating the target version of the first application with the target processing entity (McClory, ¶ 134, pulling the current version of the application source code information from the master or mainline branch. The build process of the integration workflow may then build or compile the retrieved application source code information according to the build configuration information to generate the software application).
As to claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. McClory as modified further discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to the first application changing to an unavailable state (Hess, col. 6, ln. 8-16, The confirm component of a module 126 may be configured to verify (e.g., confirm) the validity of the output dataset by confirming the state of the module 126 or whether the state of the module 126 has changed … if the confirm component of module 126a determines that module 126a was in an erred state [an unavailable state] while generating the output dataset or after generating the output dataset, then the confirm component may determine that the output dataset is invalid), presenting indication associated with the target processing entity (Hess, col. 6, 37-41, If the confirm component of a module 126 determines that the module 126 was in an erred state after generating the output dataset, then the confirm component may be configured to generate a message (e.g., a flag) indicating that the output dataset is invalid) , the indication indicating that the target processing entity is invalid (Hess, col. 6, 37-41); presenting a replacement entry for replacing the first application (Hass, col. 5, ln. 50-55, the module management system 102 may be configured to modify an execution order of the plurality of modules by replacing module 126a with module 126b responsive to determining from the message that the module 126 lacks the processing capability to generate an output dataset); and associating, based on a selection of the replacement entry, a second application with the target processing entity (Hass, col. 5, ln. 50-55, the module management system 102 may be configured to modify an execution order of the plurality of modules by replacing module 126a with module 126b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of McClory with the teaching taught by Hess. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to verify (e.g., confirm) the validity of the output dataset by confirming the state of the module 126 or whether the state of the module 126 has changed. if the confirm component of module 126a determines that module 126a was in an erred state while generating the output dataset or after generating the output dataset, then the confirm component may determine that the output dataset is invalid. If the confirm component of module 126a determines that module 126a was in an error-free state while generating the output dataset and stayed in the error-free state after generating the output dataset, then the confirm component may be configured to determine that the output dataset is valid (Hess, col. 6, ln. 8-21).
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. McClory as modified further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein prompt information of the target processing entity is determined based on a private prompt of the target processing entity and a global prompt associated with the target application (McClory, ¶ 47, the application creation configuration information may include, without limitation, the location of an application source code data store configured to store application source code information, application source code access [a private prompt] information for accessing private application source code data stores, a deployment location of the application, a name of the application, a brief description of the application; ¶ 129, the application creation configuration information may include a location of an application source code data store. This data store may be a public [a global prompt] or private repository).
As to claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. McClory as modified further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of processing entities further comprises a processing entity corresponding to a target agent (McClory, Fig. 4, ¶ 131, an integration workflow [a target agent] configured to build the application source code information may be created; ¶ 140, the integration workflow and testing workflow created at stages 412 and 414 may subsequently facilitate automatic building and testing of the software application in response to updates to application source code information).
As to claim 18, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. McClory as modified further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the first application is an application based on a single agent (McClory, Fig. 4, ¶ 131, an integration workflow [a single target agent] configured to build the application source code information may be created).
Claim 19 is essentially the same as claim 1 except is set forth the claimed invention as a device and is rejected with the same reasoning as applied in claim 1.
Claim 20 is essentially the same as claim 1 except is set forth the claimed invention as a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and is rejected with the same reasoning as applied in claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0321918 (hereinafter " McClory”) in view of US 11,307,852 (hereinafter “Hess”), and further in view of US 2021/0232579 (hereinafter “Schechter”).
.
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. McClory as modified does not appear to explicitly disclose The method of claim 2, wherein determining the node connection graph comprises receiving, via an editing interface, a set of editing operations to create the node connection graph. However, in an analogous art to the claimed invention in the field of graphic programming, Schechter teaches The method of claim 2, wherein determining the node connection graph comprises receiving, via an editing interface, a set of editing operations to create the node connection graph (Schechter, ¶ 61, a user of the client device 20 selects an icon from the transformation selection portion 57 (e.g., one of the transformation selection icons 57a-57n) and, for example, drags the icon onto the canvas 52 … the icons are automatically connected such that the placement of one icon beneath another icon in the canvas 52 causes graph generation system 12 to automatically draw a connection between the icons), wherein the set of editing operations comprises at least one of: adding a new node to the node connection graph (Schechter, ¶ 66, the transformation engine 18 may insert one or more nodes 34 representing the added operations into the dataflow graph 17 used to produce the transformed dataflow graph 19); deleting an existing node in the node connection graph (Schechter, ¶ 71, the transformation engine 18 may identify and remove “dead” nodes representing unused or otherwise unnecessary operations); editing an attribute of a node in the node connection graph (Schechter, ¶ 87, Generating the first dataflow graph can include retrieving from a storage system elements of the operation held in the operation placeholder field to populate (or modify) the operation placeholder field with the operation (or a link to the operation); or modifying a connection relationship of nodes in the node connection graph (Schechter, ¶ 75, the transformation engine 18 may perform a width reduction optimization that removes the unused or otherwise unnecessary data (e.g., by inserting a node to delete the data at the identified point, by replacing a node configured to perform several operations with another node configured to perform only those operations whose results are used, etc.)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of McClory with the teaching taught by Schechter. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to express complex computations as a directed graph, with components of the computation being associated with the vertices of the graph and data flows between the components corresponding to links (arcs, edges) of the graph to transform dataflow graph into an optimized dataflow graph by applying one or more dataflow graph optimization rules to the dataflow graph to improve a computational efficiency of the dataflow graph, relative to a computational efficiency of the dataflow graph prior to the applying (Schechter, ¶ ¶ 3, 9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,941,411 B2 teaches acquiring a configuration parameter of a target application from a data management server and executing the target application using a target code package and a locally cached target plugin;
US 2024/0053877 teaches a graphical user interface for a node-graph editor; and
US 2020/0174755 A1 teaches an application tool that enables a user to compose project logic for an application through a user-interface.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAXIN WU whose telephone number is (571) 270-7721. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (7 am - 11:30 am; 1:30- 5 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Wei Mui can be reached at (571) 272-3708. 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. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
/DAXIN WU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191