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 is responsive to amendment filed on 2/20/26. Claims 1-9, 11-21 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 2, 9 and 17 are amended. Claim 10 is canceled. Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1-9, 11-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pellicer et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0215259), hereinafter Pellicer.
Regarding claim 1, Pellicer discloses
A computer system comprising: ([0095]; Fig. 7; [0122]; [0125-0126]; i.e. Computer system implementing method of message segmentation system/addressee determination system/coreference resolver.)
at least one processor; and (Fig. 7, 714)
computer memory having computer-readable instructions embodied thereon that when executed by the at least one processor perform operations comprising: (Fig. 7, 724; [0125-0126])
detecting a first mention (i.e. message addressee) in an electronic communication, the first mention indicating a user (i.e. recipient) associated with the electronic communication; ([0096]; [0102])
determining a point of view (“POV”) for the first mention by evaluating whether the POV is a third-person point of view with respect to the user; ([0088-0089, 0101-0102]; [0021-0022]; i.e. It is determined that a particular segment is relevant/directed to a particular recipient. for example, "Joe, could you make the airline reservations? Lisa, could you send me the draft of the memo". Joe and Lisa are POV2/POV3)
determining the electronic communication includes an indication of a task to be performed; ([0107])
based on determining the POV for the first mention, determining the task is designated from the user; ([0107])
generating an enhanced electronic communication data (i.e. annotated electronic message) comprising the electronic communication, the indication (i.e. task highlighted in the message “make the airline reservation”) of the task to be performed, and a data label (i.e. highlighted “Joe”) corresponding to the task associated with the first mention, wherein the data label indicates the POV is a second-person point of view or a third-person point of view with respect to the user; (i.e. the electronic message may be annotated before it is transmitted from John to Joe and Lisa. For example, a version of the electronic message transmitted to Joe may highlight the first segment, such as, for example, "Joe, could you make the airline reservations? Lisa, could you send me the draft of the memo". Also, for example, the version of the electronic message transmitted to Lisa may highlight the second segment, such as, for example, "Joe, could you make the airline reservations? Lisa, could you send me the draft of the memo". Joe and Lisa are POV2/POV3) and ([0088-0089])
providing the enhanced electronic communication data in an electronic record associated with the electronic communication to the user. ([0089]; i.e. The message is annotated and then transmitted to the recipient.)
Regarding claim 2, Pellicer discloses
The computer system of claim 1, further comprising causing the task indicated in the enhanced electronic communication data to be included in a task tracker. (i.e. calendar) ([0088]; [0091])
Regarding claim 3, Pellicer discloses
The computer system of claim 1, further comprising:
parsing the electronic communication into a plurality of sections; and ([0098])
wherein determining the POV for the first mention further comprises determining the POV for a first section of the plurality of sections. ([0100]; [0021-0022])
Regarding claim 7, Pellicer discloses
The computer system of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a second point of view for a second mention; (i.e. another recipient such as Lisa) and ([0089]; [0101-0102]; [0021-0022]; i.e. It is determined that a second segment is relevant/directed to another recipient.)
determining the second mention is associated with a second task (i.e. send me the draft of the memo) for a second user (i.e. Lisa) associated with the electronic communication. ([0089]; [0075])
Regarding claim 8, Pellicer discloses
The computer system of claim 7, further comprising:
generating second enhanced electronic communication data comprising the electronic communication including an indication of the second task and a second data label corresponding to the second task associated with the second mention and the second point of view; and ([0088-0089])
providing the second enhanced electronic communication data in a second electronic record to the second user. ([0089])
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, 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 4-6 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pellicer in view of Pailla et al. (U.S. 2022/0004707), hereinafter Pailla.
Regarding claim 4, Pellicer shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. However, Pellicer fails to show
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the enhanced electronic communication data causes a user interface to present to the user a suggested reply generated based on the task and the POV.
Pailla shows
wherein the enhanced electronic communication data (i.e. message with mention targeting a recipient) causes a user interface (Fig. 5) to present to the user a suggested reply (Fig. 5, 540) generated based on the task and the POV. ([0054-0055])
Pailla and Pellicer are considered analogous art because they involve messaging with targeted recipient tasks. Pellicer shows generating different versions of the message for different recipients. Pailla shows that the recipient may also be given an option for a reply in the message. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pellicer to incorporate the teachings of Pailla wherein the enhanced electronic communication data causes a user interface to present to the user a suggested reply generated based on the task and the POV. Doing so saves the recipient time in forming a response.
Regarding claim 5, Pellicer in view of Pailla shows all of the features with respect to claim 4 as outlined above. Pellicer in view of Pailla further shows
The computer system of claim 4, wherein the suggested reply includes an acknowledgement of the task. (Pailla: Fig. 5, 540; i.e. “I’m working on the arch sheet (task) now”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pellicer to incorporate the teachings of Pailla wherein the suggested reply includes an acknowledgement of the task for the same motivation as detailed in claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Pellicer in view of Pailla shows all of the features with respect to claim 4 as outlined above. Pellicer in view of Pailla further shows
The computer system of claim 5, wherein the acknowledgement of the task indicates an action (i.e. working on the arch sheet) to be performed by the user to complete the task. (Pailla: Fig. 5, 540)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pellicer to incorporate the teachings of Pailla wherein the acknowledgement of the task indicates an action to be performed by the user to complete the task for the same motivation as detailed in claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, Pellicer shows
Computer storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that when executed by at least one computer processor, cause operations to be performed comprising: ([0095]; Fig. 7; [0122]; [0125-0126]; i.e. Storage media of computer system implementing method of message segmentation system/addressee determination system/coreference resolver.)
determining a first mention of a set of mentions included in an electronic communication is associated with a first recipient of a set of recipients of the electronic communication; ([0033])
determining that the first mention is associated with a first point of view (POV) associated with the first recipient; ([0033]; Fig. 2, 220; i.e. It is determined that a section is directed to a first recipient such as John.)
determining a first task associated with the first mention based on a first section of the electronic communication; ([0031])
However, Pellicer fails to show
determining a suggested reply to at least one other recipient of the electronic communication based at least in part on the first mention and the first second of the electronic communication; and
causing a user interface to display the suggested reply and the first task.
Pailla shows
determining a suggested reply to at least one other recipient (i.e. another recipient associated with the same task such as Satya) of the electronic communication based at least in part on the first mention (i.e. @Satya @Gokuk) and the first second of the electronic communication; (i.e. line including @Satya @Gokuk) and (Fig. 5; [0052-0053]; [0060]; i.e. If a first mention and a second mention are assigned the same task, a reply (Fig. 5, 512) including the first mention (i.e. Gokul) is provided to Satya.)
causing a user interface to display the suggested reply and the first task. (Fig. 5)
Pailla and Pellicer are considered analogous art because they involve messaging with targeted recipient tasks. Pellicer shows sending the same message to two recipients with their associated tasks hightlighted. ([0088-0089]) Pailla shows that a suggested reply may be included in the message. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pellicer to incorporate the teachings of Pailla wherein determining a suggested reply to at least one other recipient of the electronic communication based at least in part on the first mention and the first second of the electronic communication and causing a user interface to display the suggested reply and the first task. Doing so saves the recipient time in forming a response.
Regarding claim 18, Pellicer in view of Pailla shows all of the features with respect to claim 17 as outlined above. Pellicer in view of Pailla further shows
The computer storage media of claim 17, wherein the first task includes sending a second electronic communication (Fig. 5; i.e. message to all recipients of task status) to the at least one other recipient (i.e. all recipients) of the electronic communication. (Pailla: [0054-0055])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pellicer to incorporate the teachings of Pailla wherein the first task includes sending a second electronic communication to the at least one other recipient of the electronic communication to inform all the users about the status of the task.
Regarding claim 19, Pellicer in view of Pailla shows all of the features with respect to claim 17 as outlined above. Pellicer in view of Pailla further shows
The computer storage media of claim 17, wherein the operations to be performed further comprises:
determining a second POV for a second mention of the set of mentions comprises a second-person POV (“POV2”); and (Pellicer: Fig. 2; i.e. There may be a number of message addressees with tasks directed to them. For example, John, Joe and Maggie addressees all have directed tasks.)
determining a second task (Pellicer: Fig. 2, “bring a market report”) associated with a second section (Fig. 2, 225) of the electronic communication to be completed by a second recipient (i.e. Maggie) of the set of recipients based on the second mention comprising the POV2. (Pellicer: Fig. 2; [0074-0075])
Regarding claim 20, Pellicer in view of Pailla shows all of the features with respect to claim 17 as outlined above. Pellicer in view of Pailla further shows
The computer storage media of claim 17, wherein the operations to be performed further comprises
determining a second POV for a second mention (i.e. me/Lisa) of the set of mentions comprises a third-person POV (“POV3”); and (Pellicer: Fig. 3; [0078]; Fig. 4; i.e. Lisa is determined to be relevant to the segment and task but not a segment address/second-person POV to which the segment task is directed towards.)
determining a second task (i.e. contact Lisa when done) associated with a second section (Fig. 2, 235) of the electronic communication to be completed by the first recipient (i.e. John) based on the second mention comprising the POV3. (Pellicer: Fig. 3; Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 21, Pellicer in view of Pailla shows all of the features with respect to claim 4 as outlined above. Pellicer in view of Pailla further shows
The computer storage media of claim 17, wherein the first POV is determined to the third-person POV with respect to the first recipient. (Pellicer: Fig. 3; [0078]; Fig. 4; i.e. [0088-0089, 0101-0102]; [0021-0022]; i.e. It is determined that a particular segment is relevant/directed to a particular recipient. for example, "Joe, could you make the airline reservations? Lisa, could you send me the draft of the memo". Joe and Lisa are POV2/POV3.).
Claims 9 and 11, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pailla in view of Pellicer, in further view of Hosseinisianaki et al. (US 2020/0344194 A1), hereinafter “Hosseinisianaki”.
Regarding claim 9, Pailla shows
A computer-implemented method:
obtain an electronic communication including a message body (Fig. 5, 508) directed at a first recipient; (i.e. user/Satya of the receiving device) ([0058]; [0052])
determining a set (i.e. a set may be comprised of only 1) of mentions (i.e. @satya and @gokul) in the message body, a first mention of the set of mentions indicating the first recipient; ([0053])
determining a set of sections (i.e. portion of the body directed to Satya of the portions of the body) of the message body; ([0053])
for a first section (i.e. “@Satya @Gokul – Please help fill out the security sheet) of the set of sections of the message body: (Fig. 5; [0053])
determining that the first mention corresponds to a second-person point of view (“POV2”); ([0053]; i.e. It is determined that “Please fill out the security sheet” is directed to Satya.)
determining a first task (i.e. fill out security sheet) is associated with the first mention; and ([0053])
determining the first section is associated with the first mention; and ([0053])
in response to determining the first section is associated with the first mention, causing a user interface to present a first indication (Fig. 5, 510) associated with the first section indicating at least the first task to be completed by the first recipient and a suggested reply (Fig. 5, 512/510) to a second recipient (i.e. all of the users of the ABC feature Update Group including Gokul will receive the reply) associated with the second mention. (i.e. Gokul) ([0053])
However, Pailla fails to show
wherein determining the set of mentions in the message body comprises causing a machine learning model to extract a set of users from the electronic communication based on features of the set of mentions; determining a second mention of the set of mentions corresponds to a third-person point of view (“POV3”) with respect to the first recipient;
Pellicer shows
for a first section (i.e. “Contact me when you are done John”) of the set of sections of the message body: ([0075]; Fig. 2)
determining that the first mention (i.e. John) corresponds to a second-person point of view (“POV2”); ([0085]; [0100]; Fig. 2; i.e. It is determined that task in the segment is directed towards the segment addressee, John.)
determining a second mention (i.e. me/Lisa) of the set of mentions corresponds to a third-person point of view (“POV3”) with respect to the first recipient; (Fig. 3; [0078]; Fig. 4; i.e. Lisa is determined to be relevant to the segment and task but not a segment address/second-person POV to which the segment task is directed towards.)
Pellicer and Pailla are considered analogous art because they involve messaging with targeted tasks. Pailla shows determining tasks directed to mentions in a message. Pellicer shows determining how all of the mentions are related to the tasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pailla to incorporate the teachings of Pellicer wherein determining a second mention of the set of mentions corresponds to a third-person point of view (“POV3”) with respect to the first recipient. Doing so provides that the first mention, John, may be provided more detailed responses from which to select.
However, Pailla-Pellicer fails to show
wherein determining the set of mentions in the message body comprises causing a machine learning model to extract a set of users from the electronic communication based on features of the set of mentions
Hosseinisianaki shows
wherein determining the set of mentions in the message body comprises causing a machine learning model to extract a set of users from the electronic communication based on features of the set of mentions (i.e. “The entire email body can be used as context. Then it is determined whether the entire email body helps the human understand the intent of a target sentence in the body. 540 instances were picked from the ground truth set such that half of them have positive labels. All instances were sent to two groups of human annotators. One of them had access to the full email body, with the target sentence highlighted, and the other only had access to the target sentence. The majority annotation for each sentence represents its human prediction. The annotations can be used as predictors and calculate the human predictors precision and recall in the two settings by comparing annotations with ground truth labels. ([0046, 0091-0093])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to implement’s Hosseinisianaki teachings into Pailla-Pellicer teaching of wherein determining the set of mentions in the message body comprises causing a machine learning model to extract a set of users from the electronic communication based on features of the set of mentions. This combination productivity is improved using new smart experiences to assist users with their tasks seamlessly and efficiently.
Regarding claim 11, Pailla in view of Pellicer- Hosseinisianaki shows all of the features with respect to claim 9 as outlined above. Hosseinisianaki shows
wherein the electronic communication further comprises a transcript of a meeting. ([0029])
Hosseinisianaki and Pailla in view of Pellicer are considered analogous art because they involve detecting requested tasks in a communication. Pailla shows a couple of examples of communications that may be analyzed. Hosseinisianaki shows that such a communication may be a meeting transcript. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pailla in view of Pellicer to incorporate the teachings of Hosseinisianaki wherein the electronic communication further comprises a transcript of a meeting. Doing so provides another communication which would benefit from detection of the tasks.
Regarding claim 13, Pailla in view of Pellicer- Hosseinisianaki shows all of the features with respect to claim 9 as outlined above. Pailla in view of Pellicer- Hosseinisianaki further shows
The method claim 9, wherein the first task describes an action (i.e. work on/fill out the security sheet) to be performed by the first recipient and indicated in the first section. (Pailla: Fig. 5; [0053])
Regarding claim 14, Pailla in view of Pellicer- Hosseinisianaki shows all of the features with respect to claim 13 as outlined above. Pailla in view of Pellicer- Hosseinisianaki further shows
The method of claim 13, wherein the action is indicated in the suggested reply. (Pailla: Fig. 5, 510)
Regarding claim 15, Pailla in view of Pellicer- Hosseinisianaki shows all of the features with respect to claim 13 as outlined above. Pailla in view of Pellicer- Hosseinisianaki further shows
The method of claim 14, wherein the suggested reply indicates that the first recipient will perform the action in order to complete the first task. (Pailla: Fig. 5, 510)
Regarding claim 16, Pailla in view of Pellicer- Hosseinisianaki shows all of the features with respect to claim 13 as outlined above. Pailla in view of Pellicer- Hosseinisianaki further shows
The method of claim 14, wherein the user interface further comprises a task tracker application (i.e. calendar) that is distinct from an application (i.e. email) that generated the electronic communication. (Pellicer: [0088]; [0091]; [0094])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pailla to incorporate the teachings of Pellicer- Hosseinisianaki wherein the user interface further comprises a task tracker application that is distinct from an application that generated the electronic communication to provide a reminder to the recipient about the task.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pailla in view of Pellicer, in further view of Hosseinisianaki et al. (US 2020/0344194 A1), hereinafter “Hosseinisianaki” as applied above, in further view of Li et al. (US 2015/0249742 A1), hereinafter “Li”.
Regarding claim 12, Pailla in view of Pellicer- Hosseinisianaki shows all of the features with respect to claim 9 as outlined above. However, Pailla in view of Pellicer- Hosseinisianaki fails to show
The method of claim 9, wherein the electronic communication further comprises a transcript of a meeting.
Li shows
wherein the electronic communication further comprises a transcript of a meeting. ([0031, 0051] the machine learning models are pre-trained machine learning methods, such as one or more natural language analysis, support vector machines, conditional random fields, unsupervised learning (e.g., clustering), etc. In one embodiment, mobile event manager 267 applies the models 268 in order to extract contact information from the user's communication with other users (i.e., names, phone numbers, email addresses, job titles, affiliated companies, web sites, etc.), extract contact details, attendee lists, meeting topics, etc. from calendar events, extract mobile call data from a telephone system record, and perform natural language analysis or other machine learning based analysis on the content of the extracted data.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to implement’s Li teachings into Pailla-Pellicer- Hosseinisianaki’s teaching of wherein the electronic communication further comprises a transcript of a meeting. This combination effectively provides automatically performs various relationship management tasks, such as obtaining electronic communications, tracking mobile events, tracking communications and mobile events within a process.
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant argues "...Applicant submits that the cited references do not disclose or suggest at least the above-emphasized features of claim 1 as amended. Therefore, claim 1 is believed to be allowable over the cited references. Independent claim 17 is amended to include one or more elements that are the same as or similar to those elements amended into claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant submits that claim 17 is allowable over the cited references for reasons similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1. ” (from remarks pages 8-9).
As to point (A), Examiner respectfully disagrees, in the manner of applicants specification, Pellicer disclose determining a point of view (“POV”) for the first mention by evaluating whether the POV is a third-person point of view with respect to the user; ([0088-0089, 0101-0102]; [0021-0022]; i.e. It is determined that a particular segment is relevant/directed to a particular recipient. for example, "Joe, could you make the airline reservations? Lisa, could you send me the draft of the memo". Joe and Lisa are POV2/POV3)…generating an enhanced electronic communication data (i.e. annotated electronic message) comprising the electronic communication, the indication (i.e. task highlighted in the message “make the airline reservation”) of the task to be performed, and a data label (i.e. highlighted “Joe”) corresponding to the task associated with the first mention, wherein the data label indicates the POV is a second-person point of view or a third-person point of view with respect to the user; (i.e. the electronic message may be annotated before it is transmitted from John to Joe and Lisa. For example, a version of the electronic message transmitted to Joe may highlight the first segment, such as, for example, "Joe, could you make the airline reservations? Lisa, could you send me the draft of the memo". Also, for example, the version of the electronic message transmitted to Lisa may highlight the second segment, such as, for example, "Joe, could you make the airline reservations? Lisa, could you send me the draft of the memo". Joe and Lisa are POV2/POV3) and ([0088-0089]).
(B) Applicant argues "Applicant submits that the cited references do not disclose or suggest at least the above-emphasized features of claim 9 as amended. Therefore, claim 9 is believed to be allowable over the cited references. The dependent claims are distinguished over the cited references for at least the same reasons as discussed with respect to their corresponding independent claims..” (from remarks pages 9-10).
As to point (B), Examiner respectfully disagrees, in the manner of applicants specification, Hosseinisianaki discloses wherein determining the set of mentions in the message body comprises causing a machine learning model to extract a set of users from the electronic communication based on features of the set of mentions (i.e. “The entire email body can be used as context. Then it is determined whether the entire email body helps the human understand the intent of a target sentence in the body. 540 instances were picked from the ground truth set such that half of them have positive labels. All instances were sent to two groups of human annotators. One of them had access to the full email body, with the target sentence highlighted, and the other only had access to the target sentence. The majority annotation for each sentence represents its human prediction. The annotations can be used as predictors and calculate the human predictors precision and recall in the two settings by comparing annotations with ground truth labels. ([0046, 0091-0093]).
(C) Applicant argues "Claim 21 has been added herein. Claim 21 depends from claim 17. As previously discussed, claim 17 is believed to be allowable. As such, claim 21 is believed to be allowable for the same or similar reasons as discussed with respect to claim 17..” (from remarks page 10).
As to point (C), Examiner respectfully disagrees, in the manner of applicants specification, Pellicer disclose the computer storage media of claim 17, wherein the first POV is determined to the third-person POV with respect to the first recipient. (Pellicer: Fig. 3; [0078]; Fig. 4; i.e. [0088-0089, 0101-0102]; [0021-0022]; i.e. It is determined that a particular segment is relevant/directed to a particular recipient. for example, "Joe, could you make the airline reservations? Lisa, could you send me the draft of the memo". Joe and Lisa are POV2/POV3.).
Terminal disclaimer was approved 2/20/26.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Rogynskyy et al. (US 2020/0387819 A1) disclose the present disclosure relates to determining detecting blast electronic activities. A method can include identifying a plurality of first electronic activities transmitted by a first electronic account of a data source provider. For each first electronic activity of the plurality of first electronic activities, a plurality of features can be extracted. For at least one first electronic activity of the plurality of first electronic activities, a blast probability score can be generated indicating a likelihood that the at least one first electronic activity is a blast electronic activity. The blast probability score can be generated using a machine learning model trained using features extracted from second electronic activities labeled as blast electronic activities and features extracted from third electronic activities labeled as non-blast electronic activities. An association between the at least one first electronic activity and the blast probability score can be stored in a data structure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HITESH R PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
8/4/26
Prosecution Insights