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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendments filed on August 25, 2026.
Claims 1-5, 7-14 and 16-22 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-11, 13-14, 17-18 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 6 and 15 have been canceled.
Claims 21-22 have been added.
Response to Amendment
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 9, 10 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,073,210 in view of Zundel et al. (US 6,543,006).
With respect to Claims 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,073,210 discloses:
A computing system comprising:
a memory configured to store processor executable instructions for an application development platform and a context-aware undo-redo service of the application development platform; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the processor executable instructions to cause the computing system to: (Claim 1, lines 1-9, “A computing device comprising: a memory configured to store processor executable instructions for an application development platform and a context-aware undo-redo service of the application development platform; and a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute the processor executable instructions to cause the computing device to:”)
receive a first invocation of an undo operation with respect to a computer project; (Claim 1, lines 10-11; “receive a first invocation of an undo operation with respect to environment variables, wherein the environment variables are values that are entered by a user via a particular form that is displayed within a particular screen of a computer application”)
wherein the environment variables comprise values of a particular form within one of the current screen or the second screen of the computer project. (Claim 1, lines 11-14; “wherein the environment variables are values that are entered by a user via a particular form that is displayed within a particular screen of a computer application”)
U.S. Patent No. 12,073,210 does not disclose:
a computer project comprising at least a first screen and a second screen;
identifying an active context comprising configuration changes to the computer project and circumstance associated with the configuration changes in response to the first invocation;
determining whether a current screen comprises the active context;
implementing a change to the current screen based on the active context when the current screen comprises the active context, the change comprising reversing environment variables displayed within the current screen;
and restoring a most recent change of the configuration changes based on receiving a redo operation invocation with respect to the environment variables displayed.
However, Zundel et al. disclose:
a computer project comprising at least a first screen and a second screen; (CAD project (computer project) can consists of three documents A, B and C (first/second screen), Column 9, lines 12-27; current document focus may be document B (first or second screen) and the not-focused document may be document A (first or second screen), Column 9, lines 18-27)
identifying an active context comprising configuration changes to the computer project and circumstance associated with the configuration changes in response to the first invocation; (identifying each affected document (active context) based on a transaction history (configuration changes and circumstance associated with the configuration changes), Column 9, lines 15-27)
determining whether a current screen comprises the active context; (program display can be adjusted (current screen comprises the active context) so that each affected document is temporarily displayed while relevant transactions are undone, Column 9, lines 25-27)
implementing a change to the current screen based on the active context when the current screen comprises the active context, the change comprising reversing environment variables displayed within the current screen; (program display can be adjusted (current screen comprises the active context) so that each affected document is temporarily displayed while relevant transactions are undone (reversing environment variables), Column 9, lines 25-27)
and restoring a most recent change of the configuration changes based on receiving a redo operation invocation with respect to the environment variables displayed. (Undoing the undo transaction, e.g., performing a redo operation, would bring program state back to as it existed at transaction boundary, Column 6, lines 44-46; a user may elect, at transaction TN 110, to undo all transactions back to transaction T2 104, the beginning of which is the end 112 of T1 102, and then subsequently decide to redo transactions through transaction T10 (restoring a most recent change), Column 8, lines 11-15)
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 teaching of Zundel et al. into the teaching of U.S. Patent No. 12,073,210 to include identifying an active context comprising configuration changes to the computer project and circumstance associated with the configuration changes in response to the first invocation, determining whether a current screen comprises the active context, implementing a change to the current screen based on the active context when the current screen comprises the active context, the change comprising reversing environment variables displayed within the current screen and restoring a most recent change of the configuration changes based on receiving a redo operation invocation with respect to the environment variables displayed in order to provide automatic support for undoing, redoing and aborting transactions in a programming environment without confusing a user. (Columns 1 and 9, lines 6-9 and 18-27 respectively)
With respect to Claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 12,073,210 discloses:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the context-aware undo-redo service comprises processor executable instructions adapted to control and implement the undo operation, a redo operation, and record and utilize the active context of a computer application. (Claim 2, lines 1-5; “The computing device of claim 1, wherein the context-aware undo-redo service comprises processor executable instructions adapted to control and implement the undo operation, a redo operation, and record and utilize an active context of the computer application”)
Claim 10 is a method claim similar to the computing system of claim 1 above and thus, is rejected for the same reasons in view of claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,073,210.
Claim 17 is a computing program product claim similar to the computing system claim 1 above and thus, is rejected for the same reasons in view of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,073,210.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-14 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Zundel et al. (US 6,543,006).
With respect to Claim 1, Zundel et al. disclose:
a memory configured to store processor executable instructions for an application development platform and a context-aware undo-redo service of the application development platform; (see Figure 7; memory 308, Column 14, lines 59-67))
and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the processor executable instructions to cause the computing system to: (see Figure 7; processor 306 coupled to memory 308, Column 14, lines 59-67)
receive a first invocation of an undo operation with respect to a computer project a computer project comprising at least a first screen and a second screen; (CAD project (computer project) can consist of three documents A, B and C (first/second screen), Column 9, lines 12-27; current document focus may be document B (first or second screen) and the not-focused document may be document A (first or second screen), Column 9, lines 18-27)
identifying an active context comprising configuration changes to the computer project and circumstance associated with the configuration changes in response to the first invocation; (identifying each affected document (active context) based on a transaction history (configuration changes and circumstance associated with the configuration changes), Column 9, lines 15-27)
determining whether a current screen comprises the active context; (program display can be adjusted (current screen comprises the active context) so that each affected document is temporarily displayed while relevant transactions are undone, Column 9, lines 25-27)
implementing a change to the current screen based on the active context when the current screen comprises the active context, the change comprising reversing environment variables displayed within the current screen; (program display can be adjusted (current screen comprises the active context) so that each affected document is temporarily displayed while relevant transactions are undone (reversing environment variables), Column 9, lines 25-27)
wherein the environment variables comprise values of a particular form that is within one of the current screen or the second screen of the computer project. (identified transactions (environment variables) are operations where a user has directed that some change be made to a CAD model (first/second screen), (values entered by a user via a particular form), Column 4, lines 14-18; transactions can include a user's selection of a triangle creation operation, selection of where within a drawing to place the triangle, as well as sizing and attribute selections (environment variables) within the CAD environment (particular form) (first/second screen), Column 6, lines 30-33; a user desires to edit a previously created feature or constraint (environment variables comprise values of a particular form), Columns 6 and 7, lines 62-67 and 1-8 respectively)
and restoring a most recent change of the configuration changes based on receiving a redo operation invocation with respect to the environment variables displayed. (Undoing the undo transaction, e.g., performing a redo operation, would bring program state back to as it existed at transaction boundary, Column 6, lines 44-46; a user may elect, at transaction TN 110, to undo all transactions back to transaction T2 104, the beginning of which is the end 112 of T1 102, and then subsequently decide to redo transactions through transaction T10 (restoring a most recent change), Column 8, lines 11-15)
With respect to Claim 2, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Zundel et al. further disclose:
wherein the processor executable instructions cause the computing system to navigating to a second screen of the computer project. (program display can be adjusted so that each affected document is temporarily displayed (navigate to a second screen) while relevant transactions are undone, Column 9, lines 25-27)
With respect to Claim 3, all the limitations of Claim 2 have been addressed above; and Zundel et al. further disclose:
wherein the computing system navigates to the second screen of the computer project based on the circumstance associated with the configuration changes when the current screen does not comprise the active context. (program display can be adjusted so that each affected document is temporarily displayed (navigate to a second screen/current screen does not have the active context/is not relevant) while relevant transactions are undone, Column 9, lines 25-27)
With respect to Claim 4, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Zundel et al. further disclose:
wherein the processor executable instructions cause the computing system to receive a second invocation of an undo operation with respect to environment variables displayed within a second screen subsequent to navigating to the second screen. (program display can be adjusted so that each affected document is temporarily displayed (after navigating to the second screen) while relevant transactions are undone (second invocation of an undo operation/performing the undo operation), Column 9, lines 25-27)
With respect to Claim 5, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Zundel et al. further disclose:
wherein the processor executable instructions cause the computing system to implement a change to a second screen based on the active context in response to a second invocation of an undo operation. (program display can be adjusted so that each affected document is temporarily displayed (second screen) while relevant transactions are undone (second invocation of an undo operation/implement a change), Column 9, lines 25-27)
With respect to Claim 7, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Zundel et al. further disclose:
wherein the circumstance associated with the configuration changes comprise a stack of most recent circumstances of the application development platform, a user interface of the application development platform, and configuration changes made to the application development platform and the user interface. (A transaction (circumstance) is roughly a group of actions (stack of most recent circumstances) which are effectively inseparable, such that they are all either done or all not done. Generally, identified transactions are operations where a user has directed that some change be made to a CAD model. (configuration change made to the application development platform) Unidentified transactions are behind the scenes or automatic actions. For example, there are events related to a mouse, such as move, button click, or drag events, that generate events, but are not recognized by the user as a transaction per se. (configuration change made to the user interface) (An event is essentially a notification to a program that some action has occurred.) Unidentified transactions can also include changes to how the model is viewed, but which do not actually change the model itself, as well as program responses to user actions, which include displaying the outcome of an operation by modifying a graphics scene to show a different view, dynamically rotating the model, highlighting selected objects, etc., Column 4, lines 14-29)
With respect to Claim 8, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Zundel et al. further disclose:
wherein the processor executable instructions cause the computing system to record the active context in a form or organized within a data structure stored in the memory. (State changes are recorded by the transaction system using bulletins (record the active context in a form or organized within a data structure) wherein a bulletin is required to be able to build a list of all state (e.g. memory) changes that occurred for the bulletin, so that the memory changes can be applied to result in a final memory state corresponding to the bulletin's initial state, Column 8, lines 2-11)
With respect to Claim 9, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Zundel et al. further disclose:
wherein the context-aware undo-redo service comprises processor executable instructions adapted to control and implement the undo operation, a redo operation, and record and utilize the active context of a computer application. (program developer is preparing a CAD application program with the API. A CAD program, being a highly complex and resource intensive application, illustrates the flexibility of the claimed memory-based approach to reversion tracking. The term "reversion" is intended to include operation of the invention as incorporated into an API or other development environment. The terms "undo", "redo" and "abort" (undo operation/redo operation) refer to operations performed by the CAD program written with the API. Undo means to take a CAD design to a previous state. Redo means to undo an undo operation, e.g., to restore program operation to a later program state. Abort, similar to undo, means to stop a program operation and restore program operation to a known previous state, and to forget the changes made during the stopped program operation., Column 3, lines 53-67; State changes are recorded by the transaction system using bulletins and used for undo/redo operations (record and utilize the active context of a computer application), Column 8, lines 2-11)
Claims 10-14 and 16 are method claims corresponding to the system claims above (Claims 1-5 and 7) and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-5 and 7.
Claims 17-20 are computing program product claims corresponding to the system claims above (Claims 1-4) and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-4.
With respect to Claim 21, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Zundel et al. further disclose:
wherein identifying the active context comprises taking a snapshot of a state of the current screen or the second screen and associating the snapshot with the configuration changes. (the general approach is to take a "snapshot" of memory at the beginning of a transaction (state of the current/second screen), and to then save memory changes, post-transaction, for undo purposes (associating the snapshot with the configuration change), Column 9, lines 35-38)
With respect to Claim 22, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Zundel et al. further disclose:
wherein the circumstance associated with the configuration changes comprises a stack of circumstances comprising a number of screens, an indication of which screen is being displayed, or an indication of which screens are not being displayed. (several transactions are performed in all three documents, then the undo operations can get complex as the transaction history may include transactions from both A, B and C. (a number of screens), Column 9, lines 15-18; the current document focus may be in document B (an indication of which screen is being displayed) which means focus is not on documents B and C (indication of which screens are not being displayed), Column 9, lines 19-20)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
First, claim 1 now requires receiving an undo invocation with respect to "a computer project comprising at least a first screen and a second screen." The Office Action relies on Zundel's discussion of a CAD assembly document A having parts respectively located in incorporated documents B and C. See Zundel, col. 9, II. 12-15. Zundel, however, describes documents containing portions of a CAD assembly, not a computer project comprising first and second screens as recited. The Office Action separately relies on Zundel's statement that an affected document may be temporarily displayed during an undo operation, but temporarily displaying a document does not establish that the computer project itself comprises the claimed first and second screens or the claimed relationship between those screens and the environment variables subsequently recited in claim 1.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Zundel discloses, in Column 9 lines 12-27, that a CAD project can consists of multiple documents/files such as documents A, B and C. Zundel goes on to further state that if the current focus is on document B (first screen) and an undo operation is for document A, the focus is changed to the affected document A and temporarily displayed (second screen). Displaying each of the respective documents A, B or C at different times for either editing or undo/redo operation can be reasonably considered a first and second screen.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Second, Zundel does not disclose "identifying an active context comprising configuration changes to the computer project and circumstance associated with the configuration changes in response to the first invocation." The Office Action equates an affected document with the claimed active context and Zundel's transaction history with the configuration changes and associated circumstance. Those concepts are not interchangeable. Zundel's transaction history records transactions and program states for purposes of reverting memory to a prior transaction boundary. An affected document merely identifies a document upon which an undo operation may have an effect. Neither disclosure identifies, in response to the first undo invocation, an active context comprising both configuration changes to the computer project and circumstance associated with those configuration changes as recited in claim 1.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A transaction history includes transactions (configuration changes) and the identification of where the transaction occurred (i.e. which document is affected by the transaction) (circumstance) (see Column 9, lines 15-18). Therefore, Zundel discloses the Applicant’s claim language of "identifying an active context comprising configuration changes to the computer project and circumstance associated with the configuration changes in response to the first invocation."
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Third, Zundel does not disclose "determining whether a current screen comprises the active context" and conditionally implementing the claimed change "when the current screen comprises the active context." The Office Action relies on Zundel's statement that the program display may be adjusted so that each affected document is temporarily displayed while relevant transactions are undone. See Zundel, col. 9, II. 25-27. That passage describes an optional adjustment of the display to reduce confusion concerning an undo operation that affects another document. It does not disclose determining whether the current screen comprises the identified active context, nor does it disclose using the result of such a determination to condition whether the claimed reversal is implemented on the current screen. Indeed, Zundel states that the affected document is displayed "while" the relevant transactions are being undone. Thus, the cited disclosure concerns presentation accompanying an undo operation, not a determination that controls execution of the undo based on whether the current screen comprises the active context.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Zundel discloses in Column 9, lines 12-27, determining the current document focus and if the current document focus is not the affected document with the change (active context) then, the affected document is temporarily displayed (made the current document focus) and the undo operation is performed (when the current screen comprises the active context) on the affected document. This can be reasonably interpreted as the Applicant’s “determining whether a current screen comprises the active context" and conditionally implementing the claimed change "when the current screen comprises the active context."
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Fourth, the Office Action does not establish disclosure of "reversing environment variables displayed within the current screen, wherein the environment variables comprise values of a particular form that is within one of the current screen or the second screen of the computer project." The Office Action relies on Zundel's identified transactions and a user's triangle placement, sizing, and attribute selections. Zundel, however, expressly describes a transaction as an operation or group of actions, not as an environment variable or a value displayed within a screen. Likewise, the cited CAD environment is not disclosed as the claimed "particular form." A user's performance of a CAD sizing or attribute selection does not disclose a value entered through a particular form located within the current screen or second screen, much less disclose reversing that displayed value based on the preceding active-context determination. The Office Action therefore maps an action or transaction to an environment variable, and maps a general CAD environment to a particular form, without identifying disclosure in Zundel of the relationships expressly recited by amended claim 1.
This distinction is particularly significant because Zundel's underlying reversal mechanism operates on program state at the transaction and memory level. Zundel protects memory, records state changes, and restores stored memory states to reverse transactions. The fact that restoring program memory may ultimately alter what a CAD application displays does not disclose the claimed operation of identifying an active context, determining whether the current screen comprises that active context, and, based on that determination, reversing environment-variable values displayed within the current screen and entered through a particular form. The claimed arrangement requires these features to operate together in the recited relationship, not merely that an undo operation eventually produce a changed display.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is the Examiner’s position that Zundel discloses “reversing environment variables displayed within the current screen, wherein the environment variables comprise values of a particular form that is within one of the current screen or the second screen of the computer project." Specifically, Zundel discloses that a user is able to make sizing and attribute selections (Column 6, lines 30-35). This sizing and attribute selection can be reasonably interpreted as the “environment variables comprise values”. The user interface within the CAD project that the user makes these selections can be reasonably considered the “particular form”. The claim language do not provide further detail on the “particular form” or what the “values” are/comprise.
Further, Applicant argues that Zundel “does not disclose a value entered through a particular form located within the current screen or second screen”. However, the current claim language does not state that the values are “entered through a particular form” but that the values are “of a particular form”. There is a significant distinction between the two.
Further still, Applicant argues that Zundel does not disclose “reversing that displayed value based on the preceding active-context determination.” However, Zundel discloses performing an undo operation to document A when the current focus is on document B by first temporarily displaying document A (active context determination) and then, performing the undo operation on document A. The undo operation pertains to edited/changed values such as the sizing and attribute selections as stated above (reversing the displayed value).
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Finally, Zundel's redo disclosure does not cure these deficiencies. Zundel generally defines redo as undoing an undo operation to return program operation to a later program state and accomplishes that result through stored transaction and memory- state information. Zundel does not disclose receiving the claimed redo operation invocation with respect to the displayed environment variables and, based on that invocation, "restoring a most recent change of the configuration changes" associated with those displayed environment variables. Generic restoration of program state to a transaction boundary does not disclose the more specific relationship between the redo invocation, the configuration change, and the displayed environment variables required by claim 1.
Accordingly, the cited portions of Zundel do not expressly disclose the claimed arrangement. Nor does the Office Action establish that the missing relationships necessarily result from Zundel's teachings. Rather, the rejection depends on a series of separate substitutions, including treating a document as a screen, a transaction as an environment variable, a CAD environment as a particular form, and temporary display of an affected document as the claimed active-context determination. These substitutions do not identify each recitation of amended claim 1, arranged as claimed, within Zundel.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is the Examiner’s position that Zundel’s disclosure of a redo operation can be reasonably interpreted as "restoring a most recent change of the configuration changes". Applicant argues that “[g]eneric restoration of program state to a transaction boundary does not disclose the more specific relationship between the redo invocation, the configuration change, and the displayed environment variables.” However, it is unclear how the current claim language discloses a “more specific relationship between the redo invocation, the configuration change, and the displayed environment variables”. The claim simply states receiving an undo operation that restores a most recent change of the configuration changes with respect to environment variables displayed. This is exactly undoing an undo transaction (performing a redo operation) as disclosed by Zundel in Column 6, lines 44-50. As stated above, transactions can include sizing and attribute selections by a user and thus, the Applicant’s “environment variables”.
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 LANNY N UNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7708. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6:30am-3:30pm.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. 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.
/LANNY N UNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197
