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 non-final office action is in response to the Application filed on 4/22/2024, which is a CON of 17/965,718 Filing Date 10/13/2022 with priority to PRO 63/319,216 Filing Date 03/11/2022.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1, 11, 20 is/are independent claim(s).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-17, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11966293. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the presented claims are a broader version of the allowed claims (see chart below).
App. 18/642,624
Pat. No. 11966293
1. A computer-implemented method for automatically generating command recommendations for a software workflow, the method comprising:
identifying a plurality of command sequences stored in a database based on a current command being interacted with in a graphical user interface;
computing a score for each command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences;
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the score for each command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences is computed based on one or more commands included in the command sequence and one or more commands included in a command history.
determining at least one command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences to output based on the scores; and
outputting the at least one command sequence for display.
1. A computer-implemented method for automatically generating command recommendations for a software workflow, the method comprising:
identifying a plurality of command sequences stored in a database based on a current command being interacted with in a graphical user interface;
computing a score for each command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences
based on one or more commands included in the command sequence and one or more commands included in a command history;
determining at least one command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences to output based on the scores; and
outputting the at least one command sequence for display.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the current command being interacted with in the graphical user interface comprises a command that is being explored by a user or a command that has been clicked on by a user.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the current command being interacted with in the graphical user interface comprises a command that is being explored by a user or a command that has been clicked on by a user.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein computing the score for each command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences comprises determining a number of commands that occur in both the command sequence and a command history.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein computing the score for each command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences comprises determining a number of commands that occur in both the one or more commands included in the command sequence and the one or more commands included in the command history.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein computing the score for each command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences comprises determining that no commands occur in both at least one command sequence and a command history.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein computing the score for each command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences comprises determining that no commands occur in both the one or more commands included in the command sequence and the one or more commands included in the command history.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein computing the score for each command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences comprises determining a number of times a given command occurs in all command sequences stored in the database as well as a total number of commands in all the command sequences stored in the database.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein computing the score for each command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences comprises determining a number of times a given command occurs in all command sequences stored in the database, and determining a total number of commands in all the command sequences stored in the database.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the one or more commands included in the command history comprise commands that have been most recently added to the command history.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more commands included in the command history comprise commands that have been most recently added to the command history.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein two or more scoring techniques are implemented in determining that at least one command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences is to be output.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising receiving a selection within the graphical user interface to execute the at least one command sequence.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a selection within the graphical user interface to execute the at least one command sequence.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising updating the command history to indicate that at least one command included in the command sequence has been executed.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising updating the command history to indicate that the one or more commands included in the command sequence have been executed.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a selection to set a restoration point prior to receiving a selection to execute the at least one command sequence.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising receiving a selection to set a restoration point prior to receiving the selection to execute the at least one command sequence.
11. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of:
identifying at least one command sequence stored in a database based on a current command being interacted with in a graphical user interface;
computing a score for the at least one command sequence;
12. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the score for the at least one command sequence is computed based on at least one command included in the at least one command sequence.
13. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 12, wherein the score for the at least one command sequence is further computed based on at least one command included in a command history.
determining that the at least one command sequence should be output based on the score; and
outputting the at least one command sequence for display.
11. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of:
identifying a plurality of command sequences stored in a database based on a current command being interacted with in a graphical user interface, computing a score for each command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences
based on one or more commands included in the command sequence and
one or more commands included in a command
history;
determining at least one command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences to output based on the scores; and
outputting the at least one command sequence for display.
14. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein the score for the at least one command sequence is further computed based on a geometry displayed in the graphical user interface.
15. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 14, wherein the geometry is being interacted with in the graphical user interface.
12. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the score for each command sequence is further based on a geometry being interacted with the graphical user interface.
16. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein the score for the at least one command sequence is further based on matching at least once command related to a task being performed in the graphical user interface.
13. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the score for each command sequence is further based on matching one or more commands related to a task being performed in the graphical user interface.
17. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, further comprising receiving a selection within the graphical user interface to execute the at least one command sequence.
14. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, further comprising receiving a selection within the graphical user interface to execute the at least one command sequence.
18. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17, further comprising updating the command history to indicate that at least one command included in the at least one command sequence has been executed.
15. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 14, further comprising updating the command history to indicate that the one or more commands included in the command sequence have been executed.
19. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 14, further comprising receiving a selection to set a restoration point prior.
16. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 14, further comprising receiving a selection to set a restoration point prior to receiving the selection to execute the at least one command sequence.
17. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 16, further comprising receiving a selection to restore the restoration point after receiving the selection to execute the at least one command sequence.
18. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, further comprising:
receiving a selection of whether to execute the command sequence on sample application data or current application; and
causing the command sequence to be executed on either the sample application data or a copy of the current application data to generate modified data.
19. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, further comprising:
receiving rating and feedback information associated with the at least one command sequence; and
transmitting the rating and feedback information to a server device for storage or further processing.
20. A system comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions; and
one or more processors that are coupled to the one or more memories and, when executing the instructions, are configured to perform the steps of:
identifying at least one command sequence stored in a database based on an interaction within a graphical user interface;
computing a score for the at least one command sequence;
determining that the at least one command sequence should be output based on the score; and
outputting the at least one command sequence for display.
20. A system comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions; and
one or more processors that are coupled to the one or more memories and, when executing the instructions, are configured to perform the steps of:
identifying a plurality of command sequences stored in a database based on a current command being interacted with in a graphical user interface;
computing a score for each command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences based on one or more commands included in the command sequence and one or more commands included in a command history;
determining at least one command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences to output based on the scores; and
outputting the at least one command sequence for display.
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) 1-6, 8-13, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Verma; Gaurav et al. US Pub. No. 20200410392 (Verma).
Claim 1:
Verma teaches:
A computer-implemented method for automatically generating command recommendations for a software workflow, the method comprising:
identifying a plurality of command sequences stored in a database based on a current command being interacted with in a graphical user interface [¶ 0118] (obtaining a sequence of commands performed by a user of an application) [¶ 0120-123] (determining a task distribution based on the sequence of commands. The task distribution includes an indication of whether the sequence of commands is associated with at least a first task or a second task of the application. For instance, the task distribution can include a probability for each task represented in the task distribution) [¶ 0030, 41-42] (database);
computing a score for each command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences [¶ 0094, 100-102] (user's recent sequences of commands) [¶ 0053, 60, 121] (generation of command co-occurrence patterns (i.e. biterms) in the whole corpus of sessions could be considered “command history”) [¶ 0124-125] (determining, based on the task distribution, that the sequence of commands is associated with at least the first task of the application. In one illustrative example, referring to FIG. 14, the task distribution can include at least a first probability that the sequence of commands is associated with the first task (creating a new metric/segment) and a second probability that the sequence of commands is associated with the second task, a probability could be considered a “score”) [¶ 0081] (TaskRNN computes a “score”) [¶ 0058-64] (Markov Model computes a “score”) [¶ 0065] (Probabilistic Suffix Tree (PST) computes a “score”) [¶ 0050] (bi-term topic model (BTM) computes a “score”);
determining at least one command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences to output based on the scores [¶ 0126-128] (determining a command associated with the first task to recommend to the user. The command is determined from the set of possible commands based on the probability distribution of the set of possible commands could be a “score”); and
outputting the at least one command sequence for display [¶ 0128-131] (output for recommendation to the user (e.g., as shown in FIG. 11C)).
Claim 2:
Verma teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the current command being interacted with in the graphical user interface comprises a command that is being explored by a user or a command that has been clicked on by a user [¶ 0046, 115] (click stream data).
Claim 3:
Verma teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein computing the score for each command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences comprises determining a number of commands that occur in both the one or more commands included in the command sequence and the one or more commands included in the command history [¶ 0053, 60, 121] (generation of command co-occurrence patterns (i.e. biterms) in the whole corpus of sessions could be considered “command history”) [¶ 0059] (probability of a next command being x given the previous command that is observed).
Claim 4:
Verma teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein computing the score for each command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences comprises determining that no commands occur in both the one or more commands included in the command sequence and the one or more commands included in the command history [¶ 0074, 87] (there is no definitive sequence in which a task can be performed).
Claim 5:
Verma teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein computing the score for each command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences comprises determining a number of times a given command occurs in all command sequences stored in the database, and determining a total number of commands in all the command sequences stored in the database [¶ 0060] (number of times X.sub.n and X.sub.n+1 occurred together out of the number of times X.sub.n occurred in the corpus).
Claim 6:
Verma teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the score for each command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences is computed based on one or more commands included in the command sequence and one or more commands included in a command history [¶ 0053, 60, 121] (generation of command co-occurrence patterns (i.e. biterms) in the whole corpus of sessions could be considered “command history”) [¶ 0059] (probability of a next command being x given the previous command that is observed).
Claim 8:
Verma teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a selection within the graphical user interface to execute the at least one command sequence [¶ 0110] (Fig. 10, a graphical user interface (GUI) of a command recommendation).
Claim 9:
Verma teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising updating the command history to indicate that the one or more commands included in the command sequence have been executed [¶ 0055] (task distribution can be dynamically updated as more and more commands are executed by the user within the same sequence of commands).
Claim 10:
Verma teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising receiving a selection to set a restoration point prior to receiving the selection to execute the at least one command sequence [¶ 0056, 127] (SaveSegment command is a command that is logged when user saves a segment, and recommending the command would thus suggest the user to save a recently created segment).
Claims 11-13, 17-20:
Claim(s) 11, 20 is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim 1 is a “method” claim, claim 20 is a “system” claim and claim 11 is a “medium” claim, but the steps or elements of each claim are essentially the same.
Claim(s) 17 is/are substantially similar to claim 8 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 18 is/are substantially similar to claim 9 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 19 is/are substantially similar to claim 10 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim 12:
Verma teaches:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the score for the at least one command sequence is computed based on at least one command included in the at least one command sequence [¶ 0094, 100-102] (user's recent sequences of commands) [¶ 0053, 60, 121] (generation of command co-occurrence patterns (i.e. biterms) in the whole corpus of sessions could be considered “command history”) [¶ 0124-125] (determining, based on the task distribution, that the sequence of commands is associated with at least the first task of the application. In one illustrative example, referring to FIG. 14, the task distribution can include at least a first probability that the sequence of commands is associated with the first task (creating a new metric/segment) and a second probability that the sequence of commands is associated with the second task, a probability could be considered a “score”) [¶ 0081] (TaskRNN) [¶ 0058-64] (Markov Model) [¶ 0065] (Probabilistic Suffix Tree (PST)) [¶ 0050] (bi-term topic model (BTM)).
Claim 13:
Verma teaches:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 12, wherein the score for the at least one command sequence is further computed based on at least one command included in a command history [¶ 0053, 60, 121] (generation of command co-occurrence patterns (i.e. biterms) in the whole corpus of sessions could be considered “command history”) [¶ 0059] (probability of a next command being x given the previous command that is observed).
ALTERNATE REJECTION:
Claim(s) 1, 11, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivakumar; Raghupathy et al. US Pub. No. 2014/0289621 (Sivakumar)
Claim 1:
Sivakumar teaches:
A computer-implemented method for automatically generating command recommendations for a software workflow, the method comprising:
identifying a plurality of command sequences stored in a database based on a current command being interacted with in a graphical user interface [¶ 0049, 76, 94] (macro repository could be considered a “database”) [¶ 000071-72, 93] (Repetitive tasks can be identified by matching sets of two or more sequences of operations from the user activity log, and can be identified by finding one or more longest-matched subsequences of operations from the user activity log using a suffix tree);
computing a score for each command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences [¶ 0023, 74, 93] (organize the report of repetitive tasks in rank order) [¶ 0022, 69-72] (macro recommender can analyze a history of user behavior and suggest macros for the user to create based on repetitive patterns of user activity);
determining at least one command sequence included in the plurality of command sequences to output based on the scores [¶ 0071] (use a suffix tree 922-924 to identify the longest-matching repetitive sequences); and
outputting the at least one command sequence for display [¶ 0061-63] (display a macro execution control panel 428 as shown in FIG. 6.).
Claims 11, 20:
Claim(s) 11, 20 is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim 1 is a “method” claim, claim 20 is a “system” claim and claim 11 is a “medium” claim, but the steps or elements of each claim are essentially the same.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma; Gaurav et al. US Pub. No. 20200410392 (Verma) in view of More; Shirish et al. US Pub. No. 2022/0075917 (More).
Claim 7:
Verma teaches all the elements as shown above.
Verma does not appear to explicitly disclose “recently added”.
However, the disclosure of More teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the one or more commands included in the command history comprise commands that have been most recently added to the command history [¶ 0015, 67] (“recently used” command lists, biasing towards more recent tracked command usage).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of command recommendation in Verma and the method of adaptive user interfaces in More, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of recent commands for adaptive user interfaces in More could be applied to the command recommendations in Verma. Verma and More are similar devices because each are command interfaces. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, to “improve the efficiency and effectiveness” [More: ¶ 0035].
Claim 14:
The combination of Verma and More discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of More, which teaches:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein the score for the at least one command sequence is further computed based on a geometry displayed in the graphical user interface [¶ 0027, 57] (geometry operations).
Claim 15:
The combination of Verma and More discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of More, which teaches:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 14, wherein the geometry is being interacted with in the graphical user interface [¶ 0027, 57] (geometry operations).
Claim 16:
Verma teaches:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein the score for the at least one command sequence is further based on matching at least once command related to a task being performed in the graphical user interface [¶ 0059, 65-66] (probability of a next command being x given the previous command that is observed).
Claims 11, 17-20:
Claim(s) 11, 20 is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim 1 is a “method” claim, claim 20 is a “system” claim and claim 11 is a “medium” claim, but the steps or elements of each claim are essentially the same.
Claim(s) 17 is/are substantially similar to claim 8 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 18 is/are substantially similar to claim 9 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 19 is/are substantially similar to claim 10 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 1:
Bhutani; Ripul et al. US 11307881 teaches: ranked list; knowledge graph includes nodes representing plugins which perform complex actions, personalize suggestions such as recommendations and search suggestions.
Chandan; . et al. US 20190258498 teaches: recommendation engine 118 is also capable of causing one or more recommendations related to the predicted workflow to be presented via a user interface associated with the photo-editing application.
CHUN; LIU KA et al. US 20140180999 each of the recording scripts includes a user operation sequence and a corresponding semantic node sequence, solutions may be ranked according to their recommendation degrees.
Biswas; Sanjeev Kumar et al. US 20180260718 teaches: tool-importance scoring.
Citations to Prior Art
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968". In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323,75 USPQ2d 1213,1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264,23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807,10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385,1390,163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-3825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:30 EST.
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, ADAM QUELER can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/Benjamin Smith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172 Direct Phone: 571-270-3825
Direct Fax: 571-270-4825
Email: benjamin.smith@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights