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 6/27/2024.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 contains the trademark/trade name JavaScript. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a script for generating a web page and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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, 8, 12, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng; Jun et al. US Pub. No. 2021/0092180 (Zheng).
Claim 1:
Zheng teaches:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a config resolver, a first request to generate a first merged configuration file based on a first identification of a first page to be rendered at a first user interface [¶ 0074-76] (application request can include an application identifier associated with the web application);
based at least on the first page, selecting, by the config resolver, a first template configuration file from a plurality of template configuration files and a first input configuration file from a plurality of input configuration files [¶ 0077-79] (application template corresponding to the application identifier, web page layout) [¶ 0082] (content data to fill components could be an “input configuration file”);
wherein each of the plurality of template configuration files specifies (a) at least a portion of a respective page layout and (b) a respective set of one or more data placeholders [¶ 0081, 84] (dynamic content components can act as placeholders for content and/or functionality and at run-time);
wherein each of the plurality of input configuration files specifies at least one respective data value or respective data source for populating a respective set of data placeholders [¶ 0082, 88, 93] (text box, image data, content data of the dynamic content components will be resolved) [¶ 0047, 65] (database could be a source, also data storage could be a source) [¶ 0081, 84] (dynamic content components can act as placeholders for content and/or functionality and at run-time);
generating, by the config resolver, the first merged configuration file at least by merging the first template configuration file and the first input configuration file [¶ 0083-84] (receipt of the structure resolver, the structure resolver can trigger the device processor to resolve each content component defined within the application structure);
wherein merging the first template configuration file and the first input configuration file comprises populating a first set of data placeholders specified in the first template configuration file based on the at least one of data values or data sources specified in the first input configuration file [¶ 0087-89] (construct the framework for the dynamic content components 308, 310, 312, 314, 316 (at 260) and can then request for the corresponding content data); and
transmitting, by the config resolver to a rendering engine, the first merged configuration file, wherein the rendering engine is configured to render the first page at the first user interface based on the first merged configuration file [¶ 0089-91] (displayed at the computing device would mean that it is “rendered”) [¶ 0060, 88] (render).
Claim 8:
Zheng teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein:
each of the plurality of template configuration files specifies a respective set of one or more layout placeholders [¶ 0077-79] (application template corresponding to the application identifier, web page layout) [¶ 0082] (content data to fill components could be an “input configuration file”);
each of the plurality of input configuration files specifies a respective layout value for populating a respective set of layout placeholders [¶ 0081-84] (content layout placeholders).
Claim 12:
Zheng teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising rendering, by the rendering engine, the first page at the first user interface based on the first merged configuration file [¶ 0089-91] (displayed at the computing device would mean that it is “rendered”) [¶ 0060, 88] (render).
Claims 15:
Claim(s) 15 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 15 is a “system” claim, but the steps or elements of each claim are essentially the same.
Claim 18:
Zheng teaches:
The console component of claim 17, wherein validating the first input configuration file and the first template configuration file is performed at runtime [¶ 0081] (the dynamic content components can act as placeholders for content and/or functionality and at run-time, the web application provisioning system can provide the necessary data contents for the dynamic content components).
LaFever teaches: [¶ 0050] (validation and verification of the integrity of information).
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) 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng; Jun et al. US Pub. No. 2021/0092180 (Zheng) in view of Ben-Aharon; Roni et al. US Pub. No. 2024/0160615 (Ben-Aharon).
Claim 2:
Zheng teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the config resolver, a second request to generate a second merged configuration file based on a second identification of the first page to be rendered at a second user interface [¶ 0096] (As shown in FIGS. 2, 250 to 270 can be repeated until each dynamic content component defined within the application structure is resolved);
Zheng does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the portion of the first page layout and the portion of the second page layout are different”.
However, the disclosure of Ben-Aharon teaches:
based at least on the first page, selecting, by the config resolver, a second template configuration file from the plurality of template configuration files and the first input configuration file from the plurality of input configuration files [¶ 0094, 109, 120-126] (a template may include components from a page template (master page), common page headers/footers, component set templates and views inside list applications);
wherein the first template configuration file specifies at least a portion of a first page layout, the second template configuration file specifies at least a portion of a second page layout, and wherein the portion of the first page layout and the portion of the second page layout are different [¶ 0192-200] (combining of at least two of segmented candidate layouts; creating the automatically generated layouts based on the components in the at least one data structure); and
generating, by the config resolver, the second merged configuration file at least by merging the second template configuration file and the first input configuration file [¶ 0176] (resolve) [¶ 0208-213] (component merger may unite different components for the purpose of layout processing).
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 web interface templates in Zheng and the method of web page interfaces in Ben-Aharon, 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 merging templates in Ben-Aharon could be applied to the interface templates in Zheng. Zheng and Ben-Aharon are similar devices because each render web interfaces using templates. 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 “increase the coverage without harming the accuracy” [Ben-Aharon: ¶ 0117].
Claim 5:
The combination of Zheng and Ben-Aharon 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 Ben-Aharon, which teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the first template configuration file is associated with a first device form factor and the second template configuration file is associated with a second device form factor different than the first device form factor [¶ 0460-463] (multi-device platforms, desktop or mobile device, tablet).
Claim 6:
The combination of Zheng and Ben-Aharon 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 Ben-Aharon, which teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the first merged configuration file generated based at least on the first template configuration file is to be rendered using a first framework, and the second merged configuration file generated based at least on the second template configuration file is to be rendered using a second framework [¶ 0094, 109, 120-126] (a template may include components from a page template (master page), common page headers/footers, component set templates and views inside list applications) [¶ 0109, 323, 433] (updated pages).
Claim 9:
The combination of Zheng and Ben-Aharon 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 Ben-Aharon, which teaches:
The method of claim 8, wherein the layout placeholders comprise one or more of:
whether to enable breadcrumbs;
whether to use filters;
whether to include an action bar [¶ 0013, 27, 314-315] (main and side bar);
whether to include a table [¶ 0364, 401] (table);
whether to use a horizontal arrangement of widgets [¶ 0138, 149, 211, 365, 373, 492] (horizontal or vertical);
whether to use a vertical arrangement of widgets [¶ 0138, 149, 211, 365, 373, 492] (horizontal or vertical);
a pagination of the horizontal arrangement or the vertical arrangement;
one or more row attributes of the horizontal arrangement [¶ 0410] (row and column layout); or
one or more column attributes of the vertical arrangement [¶ 0410] (row and column layout).
Claim 11:
The combination of Zheng and Ben-Aharon 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 Ben-Aharon, which teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein:
the config resolver is executed on a server side;
the rendering engine is executed on a client side; and
the first request to generate the first merged configuration file is triggered responsive to detecting an update to at least one of the first template configuration file or the first input config [¶ 0090-91, 261, 309, 319, 456] (server based layout).
Claim 14:
The combination of Zheng and Ben-Aharon 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 Ben-Aharon, which teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein:
the plurality of template configuration files comprises a first version of the first template configuration file and a minor version with respect to the first version of the first template config [¶ 0255-256, 264-265] (matching partial layouts and/or find matching segment layouts, matching linked components) [¶ 0226] (matching third party applications);
the first input configuration file specifies an association with the first version of the first template config [¶ 012-123, 452] (master page, master template); and
the minor version with respect to the first version of the first template configuration file is backward-compatible with the first version of the first template configuration file such that the first input configuration file and the minor version with respect to the first version of the first template configuration file are mergeable to generate a second merged config [¶ 0176] (resolve) [¶ 0208-213] (component merger may unite different components for the purpose of layout processing) [¶ 0192-200] (combining of at least two of segmented candidate layouts; creating the automatically generated layouts based on the components in the at least one data structure) [¶ 0094, 109, 120-126] (a template may include components from a page template (master page), common page headers/footers, component set templates and views inside list applications).
Claim 16:
Zheng teaches the elements shown above.
Zheng does not appear to explicitly disclose “updated template”.
However, the disclosure of Ben-Aharon teaches:
The console component of claim 15, wherein executing the computer-executable instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
receive an updated template configuration file, the updated template configuration file providing an updated layout different than the first template configuration file [¶ 0109, 323, 433] (updated pages);
receive a subsequent request comprising the first identification of the first page to be rendered at the first user interface [¶ 0094, 109, 120-126] (a template may include components from a page template (master page), common page headers/footers, component set templates and views inside list applications);
generate, by the config resolver, a second merged configuration file at least by merging the updated template configuration file and the first input configuration file [¶ 0192-200] (combining of at least two of segmented candidate layouts; creating the automatically generated layouts based on the components in the at least one data structure) [¶ 0176] (resolve) [¶ 0208-213] (component merger may unite different components for the purpose of layout processing);
transmit, by the config resolver to the rendering engine, the second merged configuration file, wherein the rendering engine is configured to render the first page with the updated layout at the first user interface based on the second merged configuration file [¶ 0142] (displayed layout).
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 web interface templates in Zheng and the method of web page interfaces in Ben-Aharon, 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 merging templates in Ben-Aharon could be applied to the interface templates in Zheng. Zheng and Ben-Aharon are similar devices because each render web interfaces using templates. 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 “increase the coverage without harming the accuracy” [Ben-Aharon: ¶ 0117].
Claim 17:
The combination of Zheng and Ben-Aharon 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 Ben-Aharon, which teaches:
The console component of claim 15, wherein executing the computer-executable instructions further cause the one or more processors to validate, by the config resolver, the first input configuration file and the first template configuration file based at least in part on one or more validation rules [¶ 0013-14, 27-28, 82, 314-315, 345, 370-374] (layout rules, aesthetic rules, placement rules, creation rules, ) [¶ 0414] (conversion rules).
Claim 19:
The combination of Zheng and Ben-Aharon 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 Ben-Aharon, which teaches:
The console component of claim 15, wherein executing the computer-executable instructions further causes the one or more processors to store a shared model comprising contextual data and state data associated with the application, the shared model comprising at least one of a feature toggle, a user selection, a locale, a theme, a time zone, an active region, or an active compartment, and wherein the rendering engine is configured to render the first page based at least in part on the contextual data or the state data associated with the application [¶ 0484] (GPS location ability) [¶ 0112] (layouts for us by certain groups of users) [¶ 0323, 350, 362] (removing components).
Claim 20:
The combination of Zheng and Ben-Aharon 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 Ben-Aharon, which teaches:
The console component of claim 15, wherein the computer-executable instructions are part of a software plugin executed at a client device [¶ 0225, 460] (plug-in).
Claim(s) 3, 7, 10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng; Jun et al. US Pub. No. 2021/0092180 (Zheng) in view of Ben-Aharon; Roni et al. US Pub. No. 2024/0160615 (Ben-Aharon) in view of Viol; Markus et al. US Pub. No. 2018/0239787 (Viol).
Claim 3:
Zheng and Ben-Aharon teach all the elements of the claims as shown above.
Zheng and Ben-Aharon do not appear to explicitly disclose “different logos, different brand colors, different fonts”.
However, the disclosure of Viol teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the first template configuration file is associated with a first entity and the second template config is associated with a second entity, and the first entity and the second entity are associated with at least one of different logos, different brand colors, different fonts [¶ 0048] (vendor may want to add its own branding, trademarks, images, or other content in a user-facing GUI) [¶ 0091] (model-view-viewmodel (MVVM)) [¶ 0060, 65, 73] (just-in-time merging of configuration information).
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 web interface templates in Zheng and the method of web page interfaces in Ben-Aharon and the method of layered GUI in Viol, 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 adding branding to a GUI in Viol could be applied to the merging templates in Ben-Aharon and the interface templates in Zheng. Viol, Zheng and Ben-Aharon are similar devices because each render web interfaces using templates. 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 provide “improved flexibility, modularity, and extensibility of configurations and applications” [Viol: ¶ 0081].
Claim 7:
The combination of Zheng, Ben-Aharon and Viol 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 Viol, which teaches:
The method of claim 6, wherein the first framework is a first JavaScript library and the second framework is a second JavaScript library different than the first JavaScript library [¶ 0089] (JavaScript with different .js libraries).
Claim 10:
The combination of Zheng, Ben-Aharon and Viol 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 Viol, which teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein:
the config resolver and the rendering engine are executed on a client side having the user interface; and
the first request to generate the first merged configuration file is triggered responsive to receiving a request to render the first page at the first user interface [¶ 0015-16, 26, 104] (client side or server side).
Claim 13:
The combination of Zheng, Ben-Aharon and Viol 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 Viol, which teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of template configuration files are maintained by a user interface service team, and the plurality of input configuration files are maintained by respective application teams [¶ 0091] (model-view-viewmodel (MVVM), this type of interface design model separates the interface service team from the application teams).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng; Jun et al. US Pub. No. 2021/0092180 (Zheng) in view of Ben-Aharon; Roni et al. US Pub. No. 2024/0160615 (Ben-Aharon) in view of Viol; Markus et al. US Pub. No. 2018/0239787 (Viol) in view of LaFever; Malcolm Gary et al. US Pub. No. US 2023/0054446 (LaFever).
Claim 4:
Zheng, Ben-Aharon, and Viol teach all the elements of the claims as shown above.
Ben-Aharon teaches: [¶ 0190] (third party application)
Zheng, Ben-Aharon, and Viol do not appear to explicitly disclose “multi-cloud service offered by the first cloud service provider in partnership with the third cloud service provider”.
However, the disclosure of Viol teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein:
the rendering engine is implemented by a first cloud service provider [¶ 0041] (cloud service provider);
the first entity and the second entity are a second cloud service provider and a third cloud servicer provider [¶ 0680-681, 695-697] (multi-cloud environment), respectively;
the first merged configuration file is used to render the first page for a first multi-cloud service offered by the first cloud service provider in partnership with the second cloud service provider [¶ 0743, 746, 765] (template); and
the second merged configuration file is used to render the first page for a second multi-cloud service offered by the first cloud service provider in partnership with the third cloud service provider [¶ 0695] (data sharing with partners using the same provider) [¶ 0680-681, 695-697] (multi-cloud environment).
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 web interface templates in Zheng and the method of web page interfaces in Ben-Aharon and the method of layered GUI in Viol and the method of data sharing in LaFever, 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 data sharing in LaFever could be applied to the branding in a GUI of Viol and the merging templates in Ben-Aharon and the interface templates in Zheng. Viol, Zheng and Ben-Aharon are similar devices because each render web interfaces using templates. 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 improving data security, privacy, and accuracy,” [LaFever: ¶ 0004].
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:
He; Sanyuan et al. US 20180307465 teaches: interface template, binding module, JavaScript.
Jethwa; Ronica et al. US 20250298638 [0152] a first template specifying a layout of the content browser UI and a second template specifying a configuration of one or more groups of tiles of the plurality of groups of tiles; layout engine may combine the different UI templates.
Dabrowski; Olivier Jerzy et al. US 20140325374 template selection and generation components may include a layout attribute component 311 and a viewmodel component 312
Liu; Zhen et al. US 20160092602 MVVM, visualization bindings configured in the visual control template; binds visualizations with back-end data
Doherty; Jason US 20150134707 model-view-viewmodel (MVVM), template, populated, binding, runtime.
Deng; Yulin US 20160124914 a template, and/or all page components of the mobile application page, include dynamic data and a style of a binding attribute of a page component in the mobile application page
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 3:
Bilsten; Jesse US 20190065614 0127-populate template with logo or color theme
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