DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 8, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite "to determine to determine". Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the error” in line 7 it is unclear whether the error is referring to the error message in line 3 or the first error in line 4. Claims 9 and 17 recite the same limitations as claim 1.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 depend on claims 1,9, and 17 respectively and are rejected as they inherit the indefiniteness of the claim it is dependent on.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1, 9, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20250245120 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Bao), US 20200341747 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Brady), and US 20090077537 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Chung)
Regarding claim 1, Bao teaches:
A method, comprising:
collecting, by the processor, data corresponding to the first error (Para. [14], Bao shows "receiving, by a log analyzer, a current error log representative of one or more current errors that occurred during execution of a software application, providing, from the current error log, a current error historical sub-log that is representative of a current error that occurred during execution of the software application, generating a current error embedding for the current error historical sub-log, the current error embedding being generated by transmitting an embedding request including at least a portion of the current historical sub-log to a LLM system and receiving the current error embedding from the LLM system in response to the embedding request, determining a set of matched historical error sub-logs at least partially by comparing the current error embedding to historical error embeddings in a set of historical error embeddings," Examiner notes the above citation shows collecting error log data and analyzing it along with historical data of similar errors.);
generating, by the processor, a prompt comprising the error, the data corresponding to the first error, and instructions to determine a resolution to the error (Para. [54], Bao shows "The prompt generator 254 generates the prompt for the current error sub-log using the prompt template 258, which is at least partially completed using the historical solution provided for the matched historical error sub-log. The solution returned by the LLM system 208 can be referred to as a proposed solution and/or a new solution." Examiner notes the above citation shows a prompt containing an error log for the current error, showing both the error and data corresponding to the error, and a historical solution to help the LLM determine a solution);
providing, by the processor, the prompt to an artificial intelligence (AI) and receive the resolution therefrom (Para. [54], Bao shows "The prompt generator 254 generates the prompt for the current error sub-log using the prompt template 258, which is at least partially completed using the historical solution provided for the matched historical error sub-log. The solution returned by the LLM system 208 can be referred to as a proposed solution and/or a new solution.");
creating, by the processor, in accordance with the resolution (Para. [32], Bao " In some examples, each solution can be associated with an error identifier (error_ID), a description of the solution (e.g., textual description), and a code snippet that is computer-executable to implement the solution. In some examples, the error identifier uniquely identifies an error that the solution corresponds to. In some examples, a solution embedding is generated for each solution and is stored." Examiner notes the above citation shows creating an executable to implement the resolution.
determine, from the execution, a success of the resolution to resolve the first error (Para. [49], Bao shows "The user 220 can provide feedback to the log analyzer 206 representative of execution of a solution. For example, if a solution is executed and resolves the error (e.g., without creating any other errors or other issues), the feedback can indicate that the solution is acceptable for the error." Examiner notes the above citation shows the user determines and provides feedback if the solution has succeeded).
Bao does not disclose:
executing, by a processor, a first script; receiving, by the processor, during execution of the first script, an error message identifying a first error in a first portion of the first script
creating, by the processor, a second script from the first script
replaying, by the processor, the second script and determine, from the execution of the second script, a success of the resolution to resolve the first error
However, in the analogous art of node quality control, Brady teaches:
executing, by a processor, a first script; receiving, by the processor, during execution of the first script, an error message identifying a first error in a first portion of the first script (Para. [30], Brady shows "an installer script present on the wireless node executed to apply the downloaded update. In addition to those updates, a docker compose tool will be executed for all docker services on the wireless node. At anytime during this update process, if an error occurs, the wireless node will generate a log entry indicating the error and terminating the update script." Examiner notes the above citation shows executing an script, if an error occurs, identifying the error within a long entry and terminating the script.)
Additionally, in the analogous art of automatic test case generation, Chung teaches:
creating, by the processor, a second script from the first script (Para. [29], Chung shows "The software 120 generally includes a script generator 24. The script generator 24 (named "genComm", for example) receives input from two files (generally provided as text files). The first file (referred to as a "command description file" 22) includes information such as the command name and fixed values for the options and parameters. The second file (referred to as an "options file" 23) provides information on viable combinations of options and parameters. For example, the options file 23 may include information that the tester generated by using algorithms and tools that already exist. The options file 23 generally includes symbology such as binary values (for example, 0 omits an option or parameter from the command; 1 specifies the option or parameter). The tester adds the last column, indicating if the test case should return with or without error. This binary number provides automated test case verification." Examiner notes the above citation shows generating scripts where the script is changed based on options and parameters given to test many combinations, indicating the scripts are based on a first script. Bao shown above teaches creating a solution in accordance with the resolution given from the artificial intelligence)
replaying, by the processor, the second script and determine, from the execution of the second script, a success of the resolution to resolve the first error (Para. [27], Chung shows "As some perspective on the software 120, consider the following. A command that is executed (i.e., "run") from a command line interface often involves many option flags and parameters (referred to as "program control inputs"). The command output or execution may vary, depending upon the various combinations of options and parameters. In theory, all of the combinations of options and parameters must be tested to verify the correct output (or error message)." Para. [29], Chung shows "When the software 120 is executed, the software 120 provides an output script that the tester can subsequently run to test the command." Examiner notes the above citation shows executing a generated script and determining if the output is correct. Bao shown above teaches determining a success of the resolution in the form of feedback)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Brady into the teachings of Bao to implement "executing, by a processor, a first script; receiving, by the processor, during execution of the first script, an error message identifying a first error in a first portion of the first script”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to prevent the error from continuing and gain more information about the error that has occurred (Brady, Para. [38]).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chung into the teachings of Bao to implement "”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to test different values in the script and verify the correct output from the modifications done to the script.
With regards to claim 9, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1 above. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
With regards to claim 17, it is a computer readable medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1 above. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 2-5, 10-13, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20250245120 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Bao), US 20200341747 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Brady), and US 20090077537 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Chung), and further in view of US 12111750 B1 (Hereinafter referred to as Xiao).
Regarding claim 2, Bao as modified teaches claim 1 as cited above, but does not disclose:
further comprising evaluating, by the processor, the resolution to determine whether the error is associated with a hardcoded value and, when true, replacing the hardcoded value
replacing the hardcoded value with a variable in the second script.
However, in the analogous art of parameter value validation, Xiao teaches:
further comprising evaluating, by the processor, the resolution to determine whether the error is associated with a hardcoded value (Col. [4] line [62] - Col. [5] lines [5], Xiao shows "The parameter values can be automatically validated after they are hardcoded into source code, but before the source code is compiled. The validation process can be performed within the context of the code editing interface, for example while the software developer is viewing or editing the source code, so that any problems with the selected parameter values can be quickly and easily resolved. If a selected parameter value is invalid, the parameter value can be flagged as invalid and the system can provide recommended values for the parameter to resolve the problem." Examiner notes the above citation shows determining an issue with a hardcoded value and recommending a value to replace the invalid value with)
In addition, in the analogous art of automatically generating test cases, Chung teaches:
replacing the hardcoded value with a variable in the second script. (Para. [29-30], Watson shows " identifying the failure point associated with the software service comprises identifying a parameter mismatch between the software service and the target computing device, wherein the recommended remediation process comprises updating a parameter setting of the target computing device or the software service. In some embodiments, the instructions, when executed by the processing device, further cause the processing device to perform the step of executing the recommended remediation process." Examiner notes the above citation shows deploying a code change after identifying the source of the error is related to parameter mismatch)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Xiao into the teachings of Bao as modified to implement “further comprising evaluating, by the processor, the resolution to determine whether the error is associated with a hardcoded value”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to help the software developer debug their source code significantly faster and easier than may otherwise be possible (Xiao, Col. [5] lines [5-10]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chung into the teachings of Bao as to implement “replacing the hardcoded value with a variable in the second script.”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated
Regarding claim 3, Bao as modified teaches claim 2 as cited above, but does not disclose:
further comprising setting the variable with a previously determined value prior to replaying the second script
However, in the analogous art of parameter value validation, Xiao teaches:
further comprising setting the variable with a previously determined value prior to replaying the second script (Col. [4-5] lines [60-7], Xiao shows "a system that can automatically validate an external action's parameter values in the source code of a computer program, before the external action is actually called. The parameter values can be automatically validated after they are hardcoded into source code, but before the source code is compiled. The validation process can be performed within the context of the code editing interface, for example while the software developer is viewing or editing the source code, so that any problems with the selected parameter values can be quickly and easily resolved. If a selected parameter value is invalid, the parameter value can be flagged as invalid and the system can provide recommended values for the parameter to resolve the problem. In this way, the system can help the software developer debug their source code significantly faster and easier than may otherwise be possible." Examiner notes the above citation shows setting valid parameter values before compilation, meaning that the variable would be set prior to any script being replayed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Xiao into the teachings of Bao as modified to implement “further comprising setting the variable with a previously determined value prior to replaying the second script”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to help the software developer debug their source code significantly faster and easier than may otherwise be possible (Xiao, Col. [5] lines [5-10]).
Regarding claim 4, Bao as modified teaches claim 2 as cited above, but does not disclose:
further comprising evaluating the first script at a first preceding step occurring before the first portion of the first script, to determine a prior value for the hardcoded value.
However, in the analogous art of parameter value validation, Xiao teaches:
further comprising evaluating the first script at a first preceding step occurring before the first portion of the first script, to determine a prior value for the hardcoded value (Col. [4-5] lines [60-7], Xiao shows "a system that can automatically validate an external action's parameter values in the source code of a computer program, before the external action is actually called. The parameter values can be automatically validated after they are hardcoded into source code, but before the source code is compiled. The validation process can be performed within the context of the code editing interface, for example while the software developer is viewing or editing the source code, so that any problems with the selected parameter values can be quickly and easily resolved. If a selected parameter value is invalid, the parameter value can be flagged as invalid and the system can provide recommended values for the parameter to resolve the problem. In this way, the system can help the software developer debug their source code significantly faster and easier than may otherwise be possible." Col. [5] lines [29-48], Xiao shows "the system can extract the valid values for the parameter from its metadata and modify the definition data for the parameter to specify the valid values. For instance, the system can extract the set of valid values for the spline parameter from the metadata and modify the definition data (e.g., the grammar file for the spline parameter or its corresponding data structure) to include the valid values. The valid values may be included in the definition data as comments or other metadata information that may be ignored by a compiler or interpreter at runtime. The system can also incorporate a validation function into the definition data. The validation function can be configured to validate an input value of the parameter against the valid values. At this stage, the system has determined the valid values for the parameter and incorporated them into the parameter's definition data, which can be used in conjunction with the validation function for real-time validation of the parameter values. A similar process can be performed for one or more other parameters of the external action." Examiner notes that the above citation shows a system capable of identifying an error before the application runs and determining a valid value to recommend from previously determined valid values set in the metadata.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Xiao into the teachings of Bao as modified to implement “further comprising evaluating the first script at a first preceding step occurring before the first portion of the first script, to determine a prior value for the hardcoded value”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to help the software developer debug their source code significantly faster and easier than may otherwise be possible (Xiao, Col. [5] lines [5-10]).
Regarding claim 5, Bao as modified teaches claim 4 as cited above and teaches:
wherein the success of the resolution to resolve the first error indicates an equivalent error to the first error and, in response thereto, (Para. [24], Bao shows "For example, and as described in detail herein, the log analyzer 206 queries the LLM system 208 using a prompt for the current error sub-log, which returns a solution (code) that can be executed to mitigate the error represented by the current error sub-log. In some examples, the prompt generator 254 generates the prompt for the current error sub-log using the prompt template 258, which is at least partially completed using the historical solution provided for the matched historical error sub-log. The solution returned by the LLM system 208 can be referred to as a proposed solution and/or a new solution." Examiner notes the citation above shows that this limitation can be seen in Bao as the proposed solution is always an indication of equivalent error to the first error)
Bao does not explicitly disclose:
evaluating the first script at a second preceding step occurring before the first preceding step of the first script, to determine a second prior value for the hardcoded value.
However, in the analogous art of parameter value validation, Xiao teaches:
evaluating the first script at a second preceding step occurring before the first preceding step of the first script, to determine a second prior value for the hardcoded value (Col. [4-5] lines [60-7], Xiao shows "a system that can automatically validate an external action's parameter values in the source code of a computer program, before the external action is actually called. The parameter values can be automatically validated after they are hardcoded into source code, but before the source code is compiled. The validation process can be performed within the context of the code editing interface, for example while the software developer is viewing or editing the source code, so that any problems with the selected parameter values can be quickly and easily resolved. If a selected parameter value is invalid, the parameter value can be flagged as invalid and the system can provide recommended values for the parameter to resolve the problem. In this way, the system can help the software developer debug their source code significantly faster and easier than may otherwise be possible." Col. [5] lines [29-48], Xiao shows "the system can extract the valid values for the parameter from its metadata and modify the definition data for the parameter to specify the valid values. For instance, the system can extract the set of valid values for the spline parameter from the metadata and modify the definition data (e.g., the grammar file for the spline parameter or its corresponding data structure) to include the valid values. The valid values may be included in the definition data as comments or other metadata information that may be ignored by a compiler or interpreter at runtime. The system can also incorporate a validation function into the definition data. The validation function can be configured to validate an input value of the parameter against the valid values. At this stage, the system has determined the valid values for the parameter and incorporated them into the parameter's definition data, which can be used in conjunction with the validation function for real-time validation of the parameter values. A similar process can be performed for one or more other parameters of the external action." Examiner notes that the above citations show recommending multiple values which teaches providing a second prior value to replace the hardcoded value. This happens at a time before compilation where evaluating invalid parameters as the developer is viewing/developing code. This would constitute happening before the first script).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Xiao into the teachings of Bao as modified to implement “evaluating the first script at a second preceding step occurring before the first preceding step of the first script, to determine a second prior value for the hardcoded value”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to help the software developer debug their source code significantly faster and easier than may otherwise be possible (Xiao, Col. [5] lines [5-10]).
With regards to claim 10, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2 above. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
With regards to claim 18, it is a computer readable medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2 above. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
With regards to claim 11, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3 above. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
With regards to claim 19, it is a computer readable medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3 above. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
With regards to claim 12, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4 above. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
With regards to claim 20, it is a computer readable medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4 above. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
With regards to claim 13, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5 above. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20250245120 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Bao), US 20200341747 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Brady), and US 20090077537 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Chung), and further in view of US 12111750 B1 (Hereinafter referred to as Xiao), and US 20240143563 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Osburn).
Regarding claim 6, Bao as modified teaches claim 4 as cited above, but does not disclose:
wherein the success of the resolution to resolve the first error indicates a different error to the first error, setting the first script to the second script and restarting execution of the first script.
However, in the analogous art of detecting and correcting errors, Osburn teaches:
wherein the success of the resolution to resolve the first error indicates a different error to the first error, setting the first script to the second script and restarting execution of the first script (Para. [87], Osburn shows "In response to determining that the modified database operators did not fix the error or introduced additional errors, the database error correction system 102 can revert the changes to the database operator and identify the next most likely cause of the error. The database error correction system 102 can continue attempting to correct the error by modifying one or more database operators according to the probabilities assigned to various causes." Examiner notes the above citation shows reverting modifications done in response to detecting additional errors to the last working version and restarting attempts to find a solution).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Osburn into the teachings of Bao as modified to implement “wherein the success of the resolution to resolve the first error indicates a different error to the first error, setting the first script to the second script and restarting execution of the first script”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to ensure their code was working bug-free (Osburn, Para. [87]).
With regards to claim 14, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6 above. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20250245120 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Bao), US 20200341747 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Brady), and US 20090077537 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Chung), and US 20250231862 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Watson).
Regarding claim 7, Bao as modified teaches claim 1 as cited above, but does not disclose:
wherein collecting data corresponding to the first error comprises collecting runtime logs of the first script during execution thereof.
However, in the analogous art of ai detection and remediation , Watson teaches:
wherein collecting data corresponding to the first error comprises collecting runtime logs of the first script during execution thereof (Para. [66], Watson shows "Based on the issues or failures that are detected during the virtual deployment, the AI-based engine may classify and/or categorize the detected issues in accordance with its trained machine learning models, intelligently identify one or more causes of the failure, as well as identify potential remediation steps to remediate the detected issues. For instance, the system may analyze runtime logs, system logs, and/or environmental logs generated in the virtualized environment and use the AI-based engine to intelligently identify the root cause").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Watson into the teachings of Bao as modified to implement “wherein collecting data corresponding to the first error comprises collecting runtime logs of the first script during execution thereof”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide information to the AI model to correctly identify the root cause of issues (Watson, Para. [66]).
With regards to claim 15, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 7 above. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20250245120 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Bao), US 20200341747 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Brady), and US 20090077537 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Chung), and US 20230281005 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Groenewegen).
Regarding claim 8, Bao as modified teaches claim 1 as cited above, but does not disclose:
further comprising evaluating, by the processor, the resolution to determine to determine whether the resolution requires at least one other modification not specified by the resolution and applying the at least one other modification to the second script.
However, in the analogous art of merge conflict resolution, Groenewegen teaches:
further comprising evaluating, by the processor, the resolution to determine to determine whether the resolution requires at least one other modification not specified by the resolution and applying the at least one other modification to the second script. (Para. [5], Groenewegen shows "a merge conflict resolutions recommendation may describe the characteristics of different candidate resolutions, such as whether they will result in code that compiles and builds, which tests they pass, which gaps in testing they reveal, whether they are consistent with earlier edit patterns in this code base, how they are described in a work item management tool, their provenance, or the confidence value assigned to them by the machine learning model, language model, or other mechanism that generated them. In response, a developer may select a particular conflict resolution to implement as code changes are merged, or the developer may pursue a different conflict resolution in view of the displayed characteristics of the candidate resolutions." Examiner notes the above citation shows automated merge conflict resolution. The merging code can be considered a type of resolution and the correction to the code to resolve the merge conflict is an additional modification done to the code file. The modification is applied after approval from a developer.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Groenewegen into the teachings of Bao as modified to implement “further comprising evaluating, by the processor, the resolution to determine to determine whether the resolution requires at least one other modification not specified by the resolution and applying the at least one other modification to the second script.”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to save developers time in debugging code that has been modified and incompatible with existing code (.
With regards to claim 16, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 8 above. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12524214 B1 – This prior art teaches using an AI assistant for error troubleshooting
US 20250208837 A1 – This prior art teaches generating code using context from code and other files
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEERICK A MALIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8110. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 7-5.
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, Chat Do can be reached at (571) 272-3721. 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.
/Z.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights