DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the Applicant’s Application filed on January 30, 2026.
Claims 1, 10, 14, and 23 have been amended.
Applicant's amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection.
This action is made final in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claims 1 and 14 are independent. As a result claims 1-26 are pending in this office action.
Response to Arguments
arguments filed January 30, 2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9, 14-15, 17-18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gubba et al. (US 2021/0200744) (hereinafter Gubba) in view of Bekelman et al. (US 12,159,050) (hereinafter Bekelman) and in further view of Huang et al. (US 2018/0260458) (hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 1, Gubba teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a computer system, a migration request to migrate source data from a first database to a second database (see Fig. 1, para [0004], para [0018], discloses migrating data from a source database (first database) to a target database (second database))., wherein: the source data in the first database comprises a first portion having a first logical arrangement under a first schema (see para [0028], para [0035], discloses source database comprising a first portion having a table schema (fist schema)).
Gubba does not explicitly teach wherein: the source data in the first database comprises a first portion having a first logical arrangement under a first schema; the second database comprises a second portion having a second logical arrangement under a second schema; the second logical arrangement is different from the first logical arrangement; and the migration request comprises at least one rule specifying [[a]] the second logical arrangement under the second schema to which a grouping of source data in the first portion having the first logical arrangement under the first schema is to be transformed; transforming, by the computer system, the source data from the first schema to the second schema to generate transformed source data at least in part by transforming the grouping of source data in the first portion having the first logical arrangement under the first schema to generate at least one grouping of transformed source data having the second logical arrangement under the second schema according to the at least one rule; and storing, by the computer system, the transformed source data in the second portion of the second database under the second schema with the at least one grouping of transformed source data having the second logical arrangement.
Bekelman teaches wherein: the source data in the first database comprises a first portion having a first logical arrangement under a first schema (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3, col. 4 ln 14-21, col. 4 ln 40-45, discloses a source first database with a first instance (portion) having a first schema); the second database comprises a second portion having a second logical arrangement under a second schema (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3, col. 4 ln 14-21, col. 4 ln 40-45, discloses a source first database with a first instance (portion) having a first schema); the second logical arrangement is different from the first logical arrangement (see Fig. 3, col. 4 ln 14-21, discloses a first and second logical arrangement that are different); and the migration request comprises at least one rule specifying the second logical arrangement under the second schema to which a grouping of source data in the first portion having the first logical arrangement under the first schema is to be transformed (see Fig. 3, Fig. 6, col. 9 ln 34-46, col.12 ln 46-50, discloses transformation rules identified by conversion task script corresponding to selected target source and arrangements for multi-way mapping between instances and schema); transforming, by the computer system, the source data from the first schema to the second schema to generate transformed source data at least in part by transforming the grouping of source data in the first portion having the first logical arrangement under the first schema to generate at least one grouping of transformed source data having the second logical arrangement under the second schema according to the at least one rule (see Fig. 3, col. 9 ln 35-52, discloses transforming instance with first schema to instance with second schema according to transformation rules).
Gubba/Bekelman do not explicitly teach storing, by the computer system, the transformed source data in the second portion of the second database under the second schema with the at least one grouping of transformed source data having the second logical arrangement.
Huang teaches and storing, by the computer system, the transformed source data in the second portion of the second database under the second schema with the at least one grouping of transformed source data having the second logical arrangement (see Fig. 4, Fig. 5, para [0048], discloses storing data chunks in second schema in second database).
Gubba/Bekelman/Huang are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gubba/Bekelman to store transformed source data in second portion of second database under second schema from disclosure of Huang. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Huang as “provide effective, efficient, scalable, and convenient technical solutions that address and overcome the technical problems associated with transferring data between different databases that utilize different schemas” (para [0003]) and storing transformed source data in second portion of second database under second schema are well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 14, Gubba teaches a computer system, comprising: at least one processor operatively coupled to memory (see para [0004], discloses processor and memory) and configured to: receive a migration request to migrate source data from a first database to a second database (see Fig. 1, para [0004], para [0018], discloses migrating data from a source database (first database) to a target database (second database)).
Gubba does not explicitly teach wherein: the source data in the first database comprises a first portion having a first logical arrangement under a first schema; the second database comprises a second portion having a second logical arrangement under a second schema; the second logical arrangement is different from the first logical arrangement; and the migration request comprises at least one rule specifying [[a]] the second logical arrangement under the second schema to which a grouping of source data in the first portion having the first logical arrangement under the first schema is to be transformed; transforming, by the computer system, the source data from the first schema to the second schema to generate transformed source data at least in part by transforming the grouping of source data in the first portion having the first logical arrangement under the first schema to generate at least one grouping of transformed source data having the second logical arrangement under the second schema according to the at least one rule; and storing, by the computer system, the transformed source data in the second portion of the second database under the second schema with the at least one grouping of transformed source data having the second logical arrangement.
Bekelman teaches wherein: the source data in the first database comprises a first portion having a first logical arrangement under a first schema (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3, col. 4 ln 14-21, col. 4 ln 40-45, discloses a source first database with a first instance (portion) having a first schema); the second database comprises a second portion having a second logical arrangement under a second schema (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3, col. 4 ln 14-21, col. 4 ln 40-45, discloses a source first database with a first instance (portion) having a first schema); the second logical arrangement is different from the first logical arrangement (see Fig. 3, col. 4 ln 14-21, discloses a first and second logical arrangement that are different); and the migration request comprises at least one rule specifying the second logical arrangement under the second schema to which a grouping of source data in the first portion having the first logical arrangement under the first schema is to be transformed (see Fig. 3, Fig. 6, col. 9 ln 34-46, col.12 ln 46-50, discloses transformation rules identified by conversion task script corresponding to selected target source and arrangements for multi-way mapping between instances and schema); transforming, by the computer system, the source data from the first schema to the second schema to generate transformed source data at least in part by transforming the grouping of source data in the first portion having the first logical arrangement under the first schema to generate at least one grouping of transformed source data having the second logical arrangement under the second schema according to the at least one rule (see Fig. 3, col. 9 ln 35-52, discloses transforming instance with first schema to instance with second schema according to transformation rules).
Gubba/Bekelman do not explicitly teach storing, by the computer system, the transformed source data in the second portion of the second database under the second schema with the at least one grouping of transformed source data having the second logical arrangement.
Huang teaches and storing, by the computer system, the transformed source data in the second portion of the second database under the second schema with the at least one grouping of transformed source data having the second logical arrangement (see Fig. 4, Fig. 5, para [0048], discloses storing data chunks in second schema in second database).
Gubba/Bekelman/Huang are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gubba/Bekelman to store transformed source data in second portion of second database under second schema from disclosure of Huang. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Huang as “provide effective, efficient, scalable, and convenient technical solutions that address and overcome the technical problems associated with transferring data between different databases that utilize different schemas” (para [0003]) and storing transformed source data in second portion of second database under second schema are well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Gubba/Bekelman/Huang teach a method of claim 1 and system of claim 14.
Gubba/Bekelman does not explicitly teach wherein the second portion of the second database is unstructured and the first schema is relational.
Huang teaches wherein the second portion of the second database is unstructured and the first schema is relational (see para [0007], para [0039-0040], discloses relational database schema (relational first schema) and data chunks is unstructured data in a non-relational database (second database)).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Gubba/Bekelman/Huang teach a method of claim 1 and system of claim 14.
Gubba/Bekelman does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one rule specifies whether to transform a base-level data structure of the grouping of source data to generate a new corresponding base- level data structure of the transformed source data and/or to generate one or more new fields within an existing base-level data structure of the transformed source data.
Huang teaches wherein the at least one rule specifies whether to transform a base-level data structure of the grouping of source data to generate a new corresponding base- level data structure of the transformed source data and/or to generate one or more new fields within an existing base-level data structure of the transformed source data (see Figs. 1A-1B, Fig. 5, para [0004], para [0020-0021], discloses command initiating transfer of first database (base-level data structure) to second database (new corresponding base-level data structure).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Gubba/Bekelman/Huang teach a method of claim 1 and system of claim 14.
Gubba/Bekelman does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more new fields comprise an array within the existing base-level data structure.
Huang teaches wherein the one or more new fields comprise an array within the existing base-level data structure (see Fig. 1B, Fig. 2B, para [0030], discloses a data table (array) associated with data transformation of first database schema (existing base-level data structure) to a second database schema).
Regarding claims 9 and 22, Gubba/Bekelman/Huang teach a method of claim 1 and system of claim 14.
Gubba further teaches wherein the migration request specifies: a first address where the source data of the first database is stored; and a second address at which the transformed source data is to be stored in the second database (see Fig. 1B, Fig. 4, para [0027], para [0046], discloses distinct memory locations for data of respective first and second databases).
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gubba et al. (US 2021/0200744) (hereinafter Gubba) in view of Bekelman and Huang as applied to claims 1 and 14, and in further view of Karunanithi et al. (US 2019/0155801) (hereinafter Karunanithi).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Gubba/Bekelman/Huang teach a method of claim 1 and system of claim 14.
Gubba/Bekelman/Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one rule comprises a first rule selected by a user from among at least first and second rules in response to at least the first and second rules being presented to the user for selection via a graphical user interface (GUI).
Karunanithi teaches wherein the at least one rule comprises a first rule selected by a user from among at least first and second rules in response to at least the first and second rules being presented to the user for selection via a graphical user interface (GUI) (see Fig. 3F, para [0053], discloses rule selection screen on user interface 200).
Gubba/Bekelman/Huang/Karunanithi are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gubba/Bekelman/Huang to include a GUI for user selection of rules from disclosure of Karunanithi. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Karunanithi as “efficiently validating a target data store based on a source data store” (para [0010]) and including a GUI for user selection of rules is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Claims 6-8 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gubba et al. (US 2021/0200744) (hereinafter Gubba) in view of Bekelman and Huang as applied to claims 1 and 14, and in further view of Tsirogiannis et al. (US 2014/0279838) (hereinafter Tsirogiannis).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Gubba/Bekelman/Huang teach a method of claim 1 and system of claim 14.
Gubba/Bekelman/Huang does not explicitly teach presenting a graphical user interface (GUI) to a user to prompt selection, for a particular grouping of base-level data structures in the source data, of an option from among at least: generating one or more new corresponding base-level data structures of the transformed source data; and/or generating one or more new fields within an existing base-level data structure of the transformed source data, wherein the migration request is generated at least partially in response to the selection.
Tsirogiannis teaches presenting a graphical user interface (GUI) to a user to prompt selection, for a particular grouping of base-level data structures in the source data, of an option from among at least: generating one or more new corresponding base-level data structures of the transformed source data; and/or generating one or more new fields within an existing base-level data structure of the transformed source data, wherein the migration request is generated at least partially in response to the selection (see Figs. 13A-13D, para [0319-0320, 0323], para [0334], discloses generating a new corresponding relational schema from a chart schema for transformed source data).
Gubba/Bekelman/Huang/Tsirogiannis are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gubba/Bekelman/Huang to include a GUI for user selection of base-level structure from disclosure of Tsirogiannis. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Tsirogiannis as “As database technology improved both in performance and cost, businesses saw a need to keep an increasing amount of operational history and business state for later analysis.” (para [0005]) and including a GUI for user selection of base-level structure is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Gubba/Bekelman/Huang teach a method of claim 1 and system of claim 14.
Gubba/Bekelman/Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one rule specifies whether to transform a row of a table of the first portion of the source data to generate a new corresponding document of the transformed source data and/or to generate one or more new fields within an existing document of the transformed source data.
Tsirogiannis teaches wherein the at least one rule specifies whether to transform a row of a table of the first portion of the source data to generate a new corresponding document of the transformed source data and/or to generate one or more new fields within an existing document of the transformed source data (see Figs. 12-13E, para [0317], para [0320-0321, 0323], discloses transforming tabular row data to generate corresponding chart or csv document of the tabular row data).
Gubba/Bekelman/Huang/Tsirogiannis are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gubba/Bekelman/Huang to include a GUI for user selection of base-level structure from disclosure of Tsirogiannis. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Tsirogiannis as “As database technology improved both in performance and cost, businesses saw a need to keep an increasing amount of operational history and business state for later analysis.” (para [0005]) and including a GUI for user selection of base-level structure is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claims 8 and 21, Gubba/Bekelman/Huang teach a method of claim 1 and system of claim 14.
Gubba/Bekelman/Huang does not explicitly teach presenting a graphical user interface (GUI) to a user to prompt selection, for a particular table in the source data, of an option from among at least: generating one or more new corresponding documents of the transformed source data; and/or generating one or more new fields within an existing document of the transformed source data, wherein the migration request is generated at least partially in response to the selection.
Tsirogiannis teaches presenting a graphical user interface (GUI) to a user to prompt selection, for a particular table in the source data, of an option from among at least: generating one or more new corresponding documents of the transformed source data; and/or generating one or more new fields within an existing document of the transformed source data, wherein the migration request is generated at least partially in response to the selection (see Figs. 13D-13E, para [0282], para [0323, 0334], discloses selecting data sets for transformation, selecting a root table, and selecting type of visual representation for query).
Gubba/Bekelman/Huang/Tsirogiannis are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gubba/Bekelman/Huang to include a GUI for user selection of base-level structure from disclosure of Tsirogiannis. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Tsirogiannis as “As database technology improved both in performance and cost, businesses saw a need to keep an increasing amount of operational history and business state for later analysis.” (para [0005]) and including a GUI for user selection of base-level structure is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Claims 10-13 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gubba et al. (US 2021/0200744) (hereinafter Gubba) in view of Bekelman and Huang as applied to claims 1 and 14, and in further view of Lau et al. (US 2014/0344778) (hereinafter Lau) and Chandramouli et al. (US 2012/0166417) (hereinafter Chandramouli).
Regarding claims 10 and 23, Gubba/Bekelman/Huang teach a method of claim 1 and system of claim 14.
Gubba/Bekelman/Huang does not explicitly teach generating, by the computer system, based on the migration request, a graph defining an order and/or priority for loading portions of the source data from the first database, wherein the graph depends on the logical arrangement specified in the at least one rule of the migration request, and wherein transforming the source data from the first schema to the second schema is performed according to the graph.
Lau teaches generating, by the computer system, based on the migration request, a graph defining an order and/or priority for loading portions of the source data from the first database (see para [0135], discloses a graph that indicates execution dependencies in execution unit groups).
Gubba/Bekelman/Huang/Lau are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gubba/Bekelman/Huang to include a graph defining an order for loading portions from disclosure of Lau. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Lau as “improve query performance at database level.” (para [0134]) and including a graph defining an order for loading portions is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Gubba/Bekelman/Huang/Lau do not explicitly teach wherein the graph depends on the second logical arrangement specified in the at least one rule of the migration request, and wherein transforming the source data from the first schema to the second schema is performed according to the graph.
Chandramouli teaches wherein the graph depends on the second logical arrangement specified in the at least one rule of the migration request (see Fig. 9, para [0078], discloses directed acyclic graph depending on migrating state information from a first query plan to a logically equivalent second query plan), and wherein transforming the source data from the first schema to the second schema is performed according to the graph (see para [0035], discloses transformation plan based in part on structure of directed acyclic graph).
Gubba/Bekelman/Huang/Lau are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gubba/Bekelman/Huang to perform transforming of schema according to a graph from disclosure of Chandramouli. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Chandramouli as “get the new query plan up and running as quickly as possible to obtain the more efficient processing of an input data stream to obtain identical output, and to be able to discontinue processing of the old query plan” (para [0028]) and performing transforming of schema according to a graph is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claims 11 and 24, Gubba/Bekelman/Huang teach a method of claim 1 and system of claim 14.
Gubba/Bekelman/Huang does not explicitly teach the graph comprises a dependency graph comprising multiple parallel paths indicating multiple portions of the source data for transforming in parallel; and generating the graph comprises identifying a plurality of base portions of the source data corresponding to base collections to be generated in the second database.
Lau teaches a dependency graph comprising multiple parallel paths indicating multiple portions of the source data for transforming in parallel (see para [0135], discloses dependency graph indicating execution unit groups to be executed in parallel, used to transform data); and generating the graph comprises identifying a plurality of base portions of the source data corresponding to base collections to be generated in the second database (see Fig. 16, para [0135], discloses identifying execution unit groups (base portions of source data) corresponding to execution unit groups generated in target data).
Gubba/Bekelman/Huang/Lau are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gubba/Bekelman/Huang to include a graph defining an order for loading portions from disclosure of Lau. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Lau as “improve query performance at database level.” (para [0134]) and including a graph defining an order for loading portions is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claims 12 and 25, Gubba/Bekelman/Huang teach a method of claim 1 and system of claim 14.
Gubba/Bekelman/Huang does not explicitly teach wherein generating the graph further comprises determining, based on the migration request, a plurality of secondary portions to be added and/or linked to the base collections in the second database.
Lau teaches wherein generating the graph further comprises determining, based on the migration request, a plurality of secondary portions to be added and/or linked to the base collections in the second database (see Figs. 16-17, para [0131], discloses source datastores joined to target datastore).
Gubba/Bekelman/Huang/Lau are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gubba/Bekelman/Huang to include a graph defining an order for loading portions from disclosure of Lau. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Lau as “improve query performance at database level.” (para [0134]) and including a graph defining an order for loading portions is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claims 13 and 26, Gubba/Bekelman/Huang teach a method of claim 1 and system of claim 14.
Gubba/Bekelman/Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one rule comprises an indication of which portions of the source data will be transformed, at least in part, into one or more arrays within one or more existing documents in the second database.
Lau teaches wherein the at least one rule comprises an indication of which portions of the source data will be transformed, at least in part, into one or more arrays within one or more existing documents in the second database (see Fig. 3, Figs. 19-20, para [0079], para [0136], discloses declarative rules for data transformation indicating join and filter components and generating a design of execution units to be grouped into execution unit groups).
Gubba/Bekelman/Huang/Lau are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gubba/Bekelman/Huang to include a graph defining an order for loading portions from disclosure of Lau. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Lau as “improve query performance at database level.” (para [0134]) and including a graph defining an order for loading portions is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Conclusion
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 COURTNEY HARMON whose telephone number is (571)270-5861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
/Courtney Harmon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159