DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Non-Final Office Action is in reply to the communications filed on 21 November 2025.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 21 November 2025 has been entered.
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 2 is 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 2 recites the limitation “the creator”. It is unclear whether “the creator” refers to the “first creator” or the “second creator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims fall within any statutory category. Claims 1-12, 15-17 recite a method (i.e. a process), claim 13 recites a device (i.e. a machine), and claim 14 recites a computer-readable storage medium (i.e. manufacture). Thus the claims fall within at least one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea, providing the first subtask to a first creator for the first creator to input first created information according to the subtask description information; and receiving the first created information from the first creator for the first subtask; updating the creation state of the second subtask to the creatable state, and providing the updated second subtask to a second creator for the second creator to input second created information according to the subtask description information and the first created information; receiving the second created information of the second creator for the second subtask in the creatable state: generating a digital work draft according to the first creation information and/or the second creation information.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations, the limitations fall within certain methods of organizing human activity because they cover steps of enabling a first creator to input created information according to the subtask description information and enabling a second creator to input second created information according to the subtask description information and the first created information and generating a digital work draft according to the first creation information and/or the second creation information. This is an example of managing collaboration/interactions between people. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements, obtaining a collaborative creation task, wherein the collaborative creation task comprises a plurality of subtasks, each of the subtasks comprises subtask description information, and a dependency relationship exists among the subtasks; obtaining creation states of the subtasks, wherein the creation states comprise a creatable state and a non-creatable state, and the creation states are set according to the dependency relationship among the subtasks. However, these limitations amount to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 2, recites additional elements including a task template comprising template description information, a task setting object, the subtasks, a creation content block of a digital work and a first content generation manner. The components of the task template are recited at a high level of generality and merely perform the function of receiving information and displaying information. Therefore, the additional elements of claim 2 amount to mere data gathering and output and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 3, 4 and 10-12 further recites certain methods of organizing human activity as identified in claim 1 because they cover steps of enabling the creator to input information associated with subtasks. Claims 3, 4 and 10-12 additionally merely narrow the type of information associated with the subtasks and therefore does not render the claims less abstract.
Dependent claim 5 recites the additional elements, wherein the step of obtaining a collaborative creation task comprises: obtaining a task identifier of the collaborative creation task, wherein the task identifier is a globally unique identifier generated when the collaborative creation task is released; and/or the step of generating a first execution content corresponding to the first subtask comprises: generating a first execution content data block, wherein the first execution content data block comprises creation content information, the content relationship information, and/or the task identifier, and/or creator identity information; and the content relationship information comprises content attribution relationship, and/or content dependency relationship, and/or content inheritance relationship; and/or the step of generating first execution content corresponding to the first subtask further comprises: storing the execution content data block, generating an access address of the execution content data block, generating an execution content data packet, and releasing the execution content data packet into a blockchain, wherein the execution content data packet comprises the access address of the execution content data block, and/or a digital fingerprint of the execution content data block generated according to the execution content data block. The “obtaining” and “storing” steps are mere data gathering and storage recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 6 recites, forming a first task state graph according to the subtasks and the dependency relationship existing among the subtasks, wherein nodes of the first task state graph comprise the subtasks, and a relationship among the nodes comprises the dependency relationship among the subtasks. Claim 9 recites, wherein a process of setting the creation states according to the dependency relationship among the subtasks comprises: setting a subtask that does not depend on any other subtask and is able to be directly created to be in a creatable state; setting a subtask that is only able to be created by depending on one or more other subtasks to be in a creatable state when all atomic-type subtasks on which this subtask depends have execution contents; and setting this subtask to be in a non-creatable state when one of the atomic-type subtasks on which this subtask depends does not have an execution content.
Claims 6 and 9 can be considered as to fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because the steps of forming, generating and setting mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil. The Courts generally treat collecting information as well as analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds and/or by pen & paper as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See 2106.04(a)(2) Part III.
Claim 7 recites the limitations, wherein, when the first subtask depends on the second subtask and the first execution content belongs to the first subtask, the content relationship information of the first execution content further comprises: the content dependency relationship, pointing to a second execution content, from which the first execution content is derived, in execution contents owned by the second subtask; and/or the content inheritance relationship, pointing to a third execution content, wherein both the third execution content and the first execution content belong to the first subtask, and the first execution content is obtained by revising on the basis of the third execution content. The limitations further narrow the abstract idea of claim 1 by providing further details of the execution content of the subtask
Claim 8 recites the additional elements, a subtask type of a subtask with creation content information that comprises next-level subtasks is a framework-type subtask, and a subtask type of a subtask with creation content information that does not comprise next-level subtasks is an atomic-type subtask; generating a digital work information snapshot when an execution content node of an atomic-type subtask exists in the second task state graph, or when an execution content node of an atomic-type subtask and an execution content node of a next-level atomic-type subtask both exist in the second task state graph, or when an execution content node of a next-level atomic-type subtask exists in the second task state graph, wherein the information snapshot comprises: the execution content nodes; or the execution content nodes and a content dependency relationship among the execution content nodes. The limitations can be considered as to fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because the step of generating mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil. The Courts generally treat collecting information as well as analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds and/or by pen & paper as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See 2106.04(a)(2) Part III.
Claim 13 recites the additional elements, electronic device, comprising: a memory and a processor, wherein the memory and the processor are in communicational connection with each other, the memory has computer instructions stored. However, the additional elements are computing components recited at a high level of generality to perform the method steps. The computing components perform the abstract idea such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components.
Claim 14 recites the additional elements including computer-readable storage medium with computer instructions stored therein. However, the additional elements are computing components recited at a high level of generality to perform the method steps. The computing components perform the abstract idea such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components.
Claim 15 recites the additional elements, wherein after receiving the first created information of the first creator for the first subtask, the method further comprises: generating first execution content corresponding to the first subtask; after receiving the second created information of the second creator for the second subtask in the creatable state, the method further comprises: generating second execution content corresponding to the second subtask ; generating a digital work draft according to the first creation information and/or the second creation information comprises: generating the digital work draft according to the first execution content and/or the second execution content. These limitations only recite the outcome of “generating first execution content corresponding to the first subtask” and “generating second execution content corresponding to the second subtask ; generating a digital work draft” and do not include any details about how the “generating” are accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 16 recites, wherein the first execution content and/or the second execution content at least comprises: creation content information, comprising content information input by the creator for the subtask; creator identity information, generated based on the creator; content relationship information, comprises a content attribution relationship, being an attribution relationship between the execution content of the subtask and the subtask, wherein the attribution relationship is configured to indicate that the subtask owns the execution content. The limitations further narrow the abstract idea of claim 1 by providing further details of the execution content.
Claim 17 recites, extracting a corresponding creation content block from the first execution content and/or the second execution content, and automatically assembling it into the digital work draft conforming to a preset format according to the preset content block display attribute and content block relationship attribute in the task template associated with the collaborative creation task. The limitations can be considered as to fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because the steps of extracting, assembling mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation perhaps with paper and pencil. The Courts generally treat collecting information as well as analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds and/or by pen & paper as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See 2106.04(a)(2) Part III. Claim 17 recite the additional elements, a server side or a client side. However, the server or terminal are recited at a high level of generality and being used in their ordinary capacity to provide information. Here, the additional elements merely add the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea server or client as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (f).
Considered individually and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
As a whole, claims 1-17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Instead, the computing components are being used as tools to perform the abstract idea such that they provide nothing more than generally linking the use of the abstract to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f & h). For the same reasons, the recited elements are insufficient to provide an inventive concept and fail to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
For the obtaining, storing and displaying steps that were considered extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. The Ultramercial, Symantec, TLI, Versata and OIP Techs court decisions indicate that mere transmission, presentation and storage is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the claim do not add anything further than when they are considered separately. Thus, under Step 2B, the claims are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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, 2, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterjee et al (US 7386797 B1) in view of Mao et al (US 2018/0060376 A1)
Claim 1: Chatterjee discloses a digital work collaborative creation method, comprising: obtaining a collaborative creation task (see col. 2 lines 6-11: executing a project within a collaborative environment. In one embodiment, the method comprises creating a parent workspace for a parent project and a child workspace for each child project of the parent project),
wherein the collaborative creation task comprises a plurality of subtasks, each of the subtasks comprises subtask description information, and a dependency relationship exists among the subtasks (see col. 4 lines 51-col. 5 lines 1-30: the tasklist templates and project templates can be used to model business processes which contains a set of action(s)/task(s) which are performed on certain resources. A tasklist template/type will contain one or more dependent/independent task types/templates, task users(s) and task data. A compound task generally comprises simple tasks associated with each other by control flow or workflow associations, such as for example Sequential, Parallel, Synchronization, Loop or Branch workflow associations. A task can also have before/after email, alert or callback actions. A task type can model a simple unit of work or a compound unit of work (i.e. an ordered set of task types connected to each other via task associations).);
obtaining creation states of the subtasks, wherein the creation states comprise a creatable state and a non-creatable state, and the creation states are set according to the dependency relationship among the subtasks (see col. 2 lines 22-30: the tasklist is begun by changing its status to STARTED. If there are multiple start/first tasks within the tasklist, then a workspace is created for each first task. Each first task changes its status to be ACTIVE, so that these tasks can be now started by their respective users. In case the tasklist contain only one first task, then this task can be executed within the tasklist workspace. A tasklist is a set of inter-dependent tasks.);
the plurality of subtasks comprise a first subtask and a second subtask, wherein the second subtask depends on the first subtask the first subtask is in the creatable state, and the second subtask is in the non-creatable state (see col. 8 lines 44-66: When the execution of the task begins ("Begin Task") the task status is changed from ACTIVE to STARTED. The before Begin Task call backs are called (if any). If the task is automatic and not compound, then the specified procedure to do the task is called. Then, the End Task function is called. If the task is a compound task, the first level child task is activated by creating a sub-workspace for each child task where it will get executed. The needed task attributes are defined by the tasklist manager and associated with the task instance. Calling on activating an End Task function generally includes changing the task status from STARTED to ENDED, and calling after End Task callbacks (if any). If the next task to be executed is a sequential task, a save-point is created in the current task workspace):
providing the first subtask in the creatable state to a first creator for the first creator to input first created information according to the subtask description information; and receiving the first created information from the first creator for the first subtask, and generating an execution content corresponding to the subtask (see col. 8 lines 41-43: data item privileges are granted to the task users of this task so that they are able to operate on these task workspaces. Col. 7 lines 5-7: In FIG. 3, the first task (tp1) in the tasklist is executed in workspace (wp1, child of w). After tp1 is complete, a save-point sp-tp1 is created in wp1);
updating the creation state of the second subtask to the creatable state, and providing the updated second subtask to a second creator for the second creator to input second created information according to the subtask description information and the first created information receiving the second created information of the second creator for the second subtask in the creatable state (see col. 8 lines 48-53: If the task is a compound task, the first level child task is activated by creating a sub-workspace for each child task where it will get executed. The needed task attributes are defined by the tasklist manager and associated with the task instance. See also col. 10 lines 49-55: The project template can model a business organization structure in terms of a project hierarchy that can be defined in terms of parent-child relationships. Whenever a child project begins, the data from the parent project is refreshed to the child project. Whenever a child project ends, the data generated/updated within the child project is merged, preferably automatically into the parent project.).
Although Chatterjee teaches, as shown in FIG. 9, the process for making changes to the telephone network starts in a step 401 with a work order being created for modifying a telephone network. The work order initiates a business process that begins by branching into two independent design teams, in a step 402 and 403. The first team can design the layout for the telephone cables involved in the network and the second team can determine the spatial locations for the telephone poles to be built for the network. Both teams collaborate with their other team members to arrive at their respective final designs, Chatterjee does not expressly disclose generating a digital work draft according to the first creation information and/or the second creation information but Mao in the same field of endeavor teaches, generating a digital work draft according to the first creation information and/or the second creation information (see [0046]: The authorized user as an original owner of the draft assigns the draft to the next person in the creation process, who adds the title/text/targeting user/budget information to the draft. The creation process continues with more changes being added by same or different editors until the draft of content item is ready for final review by an approver, e.g., a marketing director associated with the content provider 130. The approver either requests the content drafting system 150 to publish the final draft or to assign it to someone else for further changes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the collaborative environment of Chatterjee, generating a digital work draft according to the first creation information and/or the second creation information as taught by Mao because it “allow(s) a content provider 130 or creator to create sponsored content through multiple phases” (Mao, [0039]).
Claim 2: The combination of Chatterjee and Mao discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above. Chatterjee discloses wherein the collaborative creation task comprises a task template, and the task template comprises template description information, a task setting object, and the subtasks (see col. 4 lines 55-57: A tasklist template/type will contain one or more dependent/independent task types/templates, task users(s) and task data); the template description information is configured to describe the task template (see col. 6 lines 26-30: A tasklist type is an ordered set of task types connected to each other via task associations. A tasklist template/type, has a name, set of user-defined attributes and a system defined "status" attribute, which represents the current state of the tasklist); the task setting object is configured for a task releaser to input task setting information (see col. 5 lines 17-25: A task type models a task in a tasklist. A task type generally comprises a task name, task description, and task data/resources, which need to be operated on inside the task. A task is an operation performed inside a workspace 120. A task is part of a tasklist and can be manual or automatic. A task can be simple or compound in nature. A compound task generally comprises simple tasks associated with each other by control flow or workflow associations); the subtasks comprise the subtask description information, and the dependency relationship exists among the subtasks (see col. 5 lines 17-25: A task type models a task in a tasklist. A task type generally comprises a task name, task description, and task data/resources, which need to be operated on inside the task. A task is an operation performed inside a workspace 120. A task is part of a tasklist and can be manual or automatic. A task can be simple or compound in nature. A compound task generally comprises simple tasks associated with each other by control flow or workflow associations); the subtasks are configured to be provided to the creator for the creator to input the created information according to the subtask description information (see col. 8 lines 44-66: The needed task attributes are defined by the tasklist manager and associated with the task instance); the dependency relationship among the subtasks is configured for setting the creation states of the subtasks (see col. 5 lines 17-25: A task type models a task in a tasklist. A task type generally comprises a task name, task description, and task data/resources, which need to be operated on inside the task. A task is an operation performed inside a workspace 120. A task is part of a tasklist and can be manual or automatic. A task can be simple or compound in nature. A compound task generally comprises simple tasks associated with each other by control flow or workflow associations); and/or the task template further comprises a creation content block of a digital work and a first content generation manner; the creation content block of the digital work comprises a content block object, a content block display attribute, and a content block relationship attribute; the content block object is configured for inputting a work content; the content block display attribute is configured to describe a display form of the work content of the content block object in the digital work; the content block relationship attribute is configured to describe a mutual relationship between the content block and other content blocks in the digital work; the first content generation manner is configured to describe a manner of generating the creation content block from the execution content of the subtask; and the collaborative creation task further comprises task setting information, the task setting information is configured to be provided to the creator for the creator to input the created information according to the task setting information and the subtask description information.
Claim 13: The combination of Chatterjee and Mao discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above. Chatterjee further teaches, an electronic device, comprising: a memory and a processor, wherein the memory and the processor are in communicational connection with each other, the memory has computer instructions stored therein, and the processor is configured to execute the digital work collaborative creation method according to claim 1 by executing the computer instructions (See col. 14 lines 50-55: the computer system 50 can also include a main memory 58, such as a random access memory (RAM) or other dynamic storage device, coupled to the bus 51 for storing information and instructions to be executed by the processor ).
Claim 14: The combination of Chatterjee and Mao discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above. Chatterjee further teaches, a computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium has computer instructions stored therein, and the computer instructions are configured to cause a computer to execute the digital work collaborative creation method according to claim 1 (see col. 15 lines 4-7: Computers 50 and 52 are generally adapted to utilize program storage devices 60 embodying machine readable program source code that is adapted to cause the computers 50 and 52 to perform the method steps of the present invention).
Claim 15: The combination of Chatterjee and Mao discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above. Chatterjee further teaches wherein after receiving the first created information of the first creator for the first subtask, the method further comprises: generating first execution content corresponding to the first subtask; after receiving the second created information of the second creator for the second subtask in the creatable state, the method further comprises: generating second execution content corresponding to the second subtask (see col. 8 lines 48-53: If the task is a compound task, the first level child task is activated by creating a sub-workspace for each child task where it will get executed. The needed task attributes are defined by the tasklist manager and associated with the task instance. See also col. 10 lines 49-55: The project template can model a business organization structure in terms of a project hierarchy that can be defined in terms of parent-child relationships. Whenever a child project begins, the data from the parent project is refreshed to the child project. Whenever a child project ends, the data generated/updated within the child project is merged, preferably automatically into the parent project). Mao further teaches, the generating a digital work draft according to the first creation information and/or the second creation information comprises: generating the digital work draft according to the first execution content and/or the second execution content (see [0046]: The authorized user as an original owner of the draft assigns the draft to the next person in the creation process, who adds the title/text/targeting user/budget information to the draft. The creation process continues with more changes being added by same or different editors until the draft of content item is ready for final review by an approver, e.g., a marketing director associated with the content provider 130. The approver either requests the content drafting system 150 to publish the final draft or to assign it to someone else for further changes).
Claim(s) 5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterjee and Mao as applied to claims 1 and 15 above and in further view of Zubizarreta (US 2013/0046573 A1).
Claim 5: The combination of Chatterjee and Mao discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 15 above. Chatterjee and Mao do not expressly disclose the following limitations but Zubizarreta in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein the step of obtaining a collaborative creation task comprises: obtaining a task identifier of the collaborative creation task, wherein the task identifier is a globally unique identifier generated when the collaborative creation task is released (see [0034]: the task data record 502 may include a task_id 504 index that may be used to access the task data record or for other data records to reference the task data record); and/or the step of generating an execution content corresponding to the first subtask comprises: generating a first execution content data block, wherein the first execution content data block comprises creation content information, content relationship information, and/or the task identifier, and/or creator identity information; and the content relationship information comprises content attribution relationship, and/or content dependency relationship, and/or content inheritance relationship; and/or the step of generating a first execution content corresponding to the first subtask further comprises: storing the execution content data block, generating an access address of the execution content data block, generating an execution content data packet, and releasing the execution content data packet into a blockchain, wherein the execution content data packet comprises the access address of the execution content data block, and/or a digital fingerprint of the execution content data block generated according to the execution content data block.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and system of Chatterjee and Mao with the method of obtaining a task identifier of the collaborative creation task, wherein the task identifier is a globally unique identifier generated when the collaborative creation task is released as taught by Zubizarreta in order to track task completion (Zubizarreta, [0036]).
Claim 9: The combination of Chatterjee and Mao discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above. Chatterjee and Mao do not expressly disclose the following limitations but Zubizarreta in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein a process of setting the creation states according to the dependency relationship among the subtasks comprises: setting a subtask that does not depend on any other subtask and is able to be directly created to be in a creatable state; setting a subtask that is only able to be created by depending on one or more other subtasks to be in a creatable state when all atomic-type subtasks on which this subtask depends have execution contents; and setting this subtask to be in a non-creatable state when one of the atomic-type subtasks on which this subtask depends does not have an execution content (see [0032] The task data 414 may also include data related to task dependencies 420. A particular task may rely on data from previous tasks to be properly performed. Similarly, a particular task may need to be performed before a subsequent task may be properly executed. Task dependency data 420 may identify predecessor and successor tasks of a particular task. Using the dependency data 420 the particular task may be made available for completion when all predecessor tasks are noted as complete. Similarly, a successor task may be made available for completion when the particular task and all other predecessors of the successor task are completed. A particular task (or sub-task) may also include a number of sub-tasks to be performed as part of performance of the particular task. In this way, a one-to-many relationship may exist between a particular task and sub-tasks of the particular task).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and system of Chatterjee and Mao with the method of wherein a process of setting the creation states according to the dependency relationship among the subtasks comprises: setting a subtask that does not depend on any other subtask and is able to be directly created to be in a creatable state; setting a subtask that is only able to be created by depending on one or more other subtasks to be in a creatable state when all atomic-type subtasks on which this subtask depends have execution contents; and setting this subtask to be in a non-creatable state when one of the atomic-type subtasks on which this subtask depends does not have an execution content as taught by Zubizarreta because it would ensure that subsequent tasks are properly executed (Zubizarreta, [0032]).
Claim 10: The combination of Chatterjee, Mao and Zubizarreta discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 9 above. Zubizarreta further teaches, wherein when an atomic-type subtask on which the subtask depends has a plurality of execution contents, the step of setting the subtask to be in a creatable state comprises: receiving one execution content selected by the creator from the plurality of execution contents; and setting the subtask to be in the creatable state (see [0038]: The tasks appearing on a task list graphical user interface for the user 606 may belong to a number of different categories including data entry and calculation tasks, data review tasks, data approval tasks, and auditing tasks. The task list may further include a status indicator with each task on the task list 604. The status indicator may identify the task as completed or not completed. The status indicator may further identify whether a listed task is available for work. A task is available for work when the financial close management engine is able to access all accounting data on which the task relies. When upstream tasks on which a listed task depends have not been completed, then the listed task is unavailable. When the upstream tasks have been completed, the status indicator for the listed task may be changed to available.).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterjee and Mao as applied to claims 1 above and in further view of Grossman et al (US 20180197131 A1).
Claim 6: The combination of Chatterjee and Mao discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above. Chatterjee and Mao do not expressly disclose the following limitations but Grossman which also discloses a task/subtask assignment system teaches, forming a first task state graph according to the subtasks and the dependency relationship existing among the subtasks, wherein nodes of the first task state graph comprise the subtasks, and a relationship among the nodes comprises the dependency relationship among the subtasks (see [0030]: hierarchical tree graph (task tree) that visually represents the task. The hierarchical tree graph may comprise a root node 255 and a plurality of child nodes 260. The root node 255 represents the overall task to be completed, the task comprising a plurality of subtasks/sections that must each be completed for the task to be completed. In other embodiments, the root node 255 may represent the final subtask/section to be completed to complete the overall task. Each child node 260 represents a particular subtask/section of the overall task. Particular subtasks may have dependencies on other subtasks which must be completed before work on the particular subtasks may begin.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the method and system of Chatterjee and Mao, forming a first task state graph according to the subtasks and the dependency relationship existing among the subtasks, wherein nodes of the first task state graph comprise the subtasks, and a relationship among the nodes comprises the dependency relationship among the subtasks as taught by Grossman because it would “generate subtask assignments for a group of human workers that enable a task to be completed more efficiently and with higher quality” (Grossman, [0007]).
Claim 8: The combination of Chatterjee, Mao and Grossman discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 6 above. Grossman further teaches, a subtask type of a subtask with creation content information that comprises next-level subtasks is a framework-type subtask, and a subtask type of a subtask with creation content information that does not comprise next-level subtasks is an atomic-type subtask; generating a digital work information snapshot when an execution content node of an atomic-type subtask exists in the second task state graph (See [0032]: A third screenshot 320 of the personal UI 118 displays information regarding the completion of the assigned subtask, which may include an image or video illustrating how the completion of the assigned subtask should appear.), or when an execution content node of an atomic-type subtask and an execution content node of a next-level atomic-type subtask both exist in the second task state graph, or when an execution content node of a next-level atomic-type subtask exists in the second task state graph, wherein the information snapshot comprises: the execution content nodes; or the execution content nodes and a content dependency relationship among the execution content nodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the method and system of Chatterjee as modified by Mao and Grossman, a subtask type of a subtask with creation content information that comprises next-level subtasks is a framework-type subtask, and a subtask type of a subtask with creation content information that does not comprise next-level subtasks is an atomic-type subtask; generating a digital work information snapshot when an execution content node of an atomic-type subtask exists in the second task state graph as taught by Grossman because it “improve[s] subtask assignments that increase personal engagement/interest, produce higher quality work, prevent repetitive strain” (Grossman, [0008]).
Claim(s) 3-4, 11-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterjee and Mao as applied to claim 15 above in view Zubizarreta and in view of Jauhar et al (US 20210004436 A1).
Claim 16: The combination of Chatterjee and Mao discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 15 above. Chatterjee and Mao do not expressly disclose wherein the execution content of the subtask at least comprises: creation content information, comprising the content information input by the creator for the subtask but Zubizarreta teaches wherein the execution content of the subtask at least comprises: creation content information, comprising the content information input by the creator for the subtask (see [0041]: The accounting data 614 is updated to reflect the data entered by the user 606 in completing the task); creator identity information, generated based on the creator (See [0041]: The task data may be updated to reflect the identity of the user 606 that completed the task).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and system of Chatterjee and Mao with the method of the execution content of the subtask at least comprises: creation content information, comprising the content information input by the creator for the subtask as taught by Zubizarretta in order to track task completion (Zubizarreta, [0036]).
Chatterjee, Mao and Zubizarreta do not expressly disclose the following limitations but Jauhar which also discloses task templates teaches, content relationship information, comprising a content attribution relationship which is an attribution relationship between the execution content of the subtask and the subtask, wherein the attribution relationship is configured to indicate that the subtask owns the execution content (See [0019]: As used herein, a task may be comprised of one or more subtasks. In some examples, one subtask is dependent on one or more other subtasks, such that the other subtasks are prerequisites for completing the subtask. In other examples, subtasks are hierarchical, wherein a subtask is further comprised of a set of other constituent subtasks. [0056]: other subtasks may be conditioned on a user selection for each of subtasks 436 and 442. As an example, a different selected meal at subtask 436 may change the ingredients of grocery shopping subtask 438. Similarly, a changed selection at subtask 442 may result in different cooking instructions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chatterjee, Mao and Zubizarreta with the method of, content relationship information, comprising a content attribution relationship which is an attribution relationship between the execution content of the subtask and the subtask, wherein the attribution relationship is configured to indicate that the subtask owns the execution content as taught by Jauhar because it would enable the user to adapt the subtasks (Jauhar, [0056]).
Claim 3: The combination of Chatterjee, Mao, Zubizarreta and Jauhar discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 16 above. Jauhar further teaches wherein the creation content information comprises: next-level subtasks, comprising next-level subtask description information configured to be provided to the creator for the creator to input the created information according to the next-level subtask description information; an attribution relationship between the next-level subtasks and the execution content of the subtask, wherein the attribution relationship is configured to indicate that the execution content of the subtask owns the next-level subtasks; and/or a dependency relationship among the next-level subtasks, configured for setting the creation states of the next-level subtasks (see [0040]: Method 350 begins at operation 352, where a subtask of a task template is accessed. In examples, the subtask is accessed from a task data store, such as task data store 112, 116, or 120 in FIG. 1. [0041] At determination 354, a subtask type is determined for the accessed subtask. As illustrated, the subtask is determined to either be “PARAMETRIC” or “CONDITIONAL.” It will be appreciated that such subtask types are provided as examples and that, in other examples, additional, alternative, or fewer subtask types may be used. Additionally, operations 356-358 and 362 and 364 are not mutually exclusive. Rather, in some examples, a subtask may be both parametric and conditional. [0045]: Example conditional criteria include, but are not limited to, completion of another task or subtask, the availability of an input associated with the subtask).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chatterjee as modified by Mao, Zubizarreta and Jauhar with the method of, next-level subtasks, comprising next-level subtask description information configured to be provided to the creator for the creator to input the created information according to the next-level subtask description information; an attribution relationship between the next-level subtasks and the execution content of the subtask, wherein the attribution relationship is configured to indicate that the execution content of the subtask owns the next-level subtasks; and/or a dependency relationship among the next-level subtasks, configured for setting the creation states of the next-level subtasks as taught by Jauhar because it would enable the user to adapt the subtasks (Jauhar, [0056]).
Claim 4: The combination of Chatterjee, Mao, Zubizarreta and Jauhar discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 3 above. Jauhar further teaches wherein the dependency relationship for the execution content of the subtask that owns the next-level subtasks further comprises: a dependency relationship between the next-level subtasks and execution contents of other subtasks, pointing to the execution contents of other subtasks on which the execution content of the subtask depends; and/or a dependency relationship between other subtasks and the next-level subtasks, pointing to the next-level subtasks (See [0056]).
Claim 11: The combination of Chatterjee, Mao, Zubizarreta and Jauhar discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 3 above. Jauhar further teaches wherein, when the first subtask is a framework-type subtask and the second subtask depends only on the first subtask, the step of setting the creation states according to the dependency relationship among the subtasks comprises: receiving the first execution content in the first subtask selected by the first creator; and setting the second subtask to be in the creatable state when atomic-type next-level subtasks owned by the selected first execution content all have execution contents (see [0020]: In other examples, subtasks of the task template may be dependent on one or more criteria. Example criteria include, but are not limited to, completion of another task or subtask, the availability of an input associated with the subtasks. [0082]: In an example, the set of task templates is received from the task catalog in response to a task template request, and the task template request comprises the task intent. In another example, customizing the subtask comprises at least one of: adapting the subtask according to at least one parametric rule; or evaluating conditional criteria associated with the subtask to generate an evaluation result. In a further example, evaluating conditional criteria associated with the subtask further comprises processing at least one subtask of the set of subtasks according to the evaluation result. [0056] other subtasks may be conditioned on a user selection for each of subtasks 436 and 442. As an example, a different selected meal at subtask 436 may change the ingredients of grocery shopping subtask 438. Similarly, a changed selection at subtask 442 may result in different cooking instructions. Once the user is done customizing the task template, actuating adds to tasks button 432 generates a task according to the selected customizations and the task template, thereby adding the generated task to a task list for the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chatterjee as modified by Mao, Zubizarreta and Jauhar with the method of, wherein, when the first subtask is a framework-type subtask and the second subtask depends only on the first subtask, the step of setting the creation states according to the dependency relationship among the subtasks comprises: receiving the first execution content in the first subtask selected by the first creator; and setting the second subtask to be in the creatable state when atomic-type next-level subtasks owned by the selected first execution content all have execution contents as taught by Jauhar because it would establish the dependent, prerequisites and hierarchical nature of the subtasks to complete a task (Jauhar, [0019]).
Claim 12: The combination of Chatterjee, Mao, Zubizarreta and Jauhar discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 3 above. Zubizarreta further teaches wherein, when a first subtask is a framework-type subtask and a second subtask depends on the first subtask and one or more other atomic-type subtasks, the step of setting the creation states according to the dependency relationship among the subtasks comprises: if the first creator does not select the first execution content in the first subtask; setting the second subtask to be in the creatable state when all the atomic-type subtasks on which the subtask depends have execution contents; and setting the second subtask to be in the non-creatable state when one of the atomic-type subtasks on which the subtask depends does not have an execution content; or if the first creator selects one or more subtask execution contents in the first subtask; setting the second subtask to be in the creatable state when atomic-type next-level subtasks owned by the one or more selected execution contents all have execution contents and all atomic-type subtasks on which the subtask depends have execution contents; and setting the second subtask to be in the non-creatable state when one of the atomic-type next-level subtasks owned by the one or more selected execution contents does not have an execution content, or one of the atomic-type subtasks on which the subtask depends does not have an execution content (see [0032] The task data 414 may also include data related to task dependencies 420. A particular task may rely on data from previous tasks to be properly performed. Similarly, a particular task may need to be performed before a subsequent task may be properly executed. Task dependency data 420 may identify predecessor and successor tasks of a particular task. Using the dependency data 420 the particular task may be made available for completion when all predecessor tasks are noted as complete. Similarly, a successor task may be made available for completion when the particular task and all other predecessors of the successor task are completed. A particular task (or sub-task) may also include a number of sub-tasks to be performed as part of performance of the particular task. In this way, a one-to-many relationship may exist between a particular task and sub-tasks of the particular task).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterjee and Mao as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Jauhar et al (US 2021/0004436 A1).
Claim 7: The combination of Chatterjee and Mao discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above. Chatterjee and Mao do not expressly disclose the following limitations but Jauhar in same field of endeavor teaches wherein, when a first subtask depends on a second subtask and a first execution content belongs to the first subtask, the content relationship information of the first execution content further comprises: a content dependency relationship, pointing to a second execution content, from which the first execution content is derived, in execution contents owned by the second subtask (See [0019]: As used herein, a task may be comprised of one or more subtasks. In some examples, one subtask is dependent on one or more other subtasks, such that the other subtasks are prerequisites for completing the subtask. In other examples, subtasks are hierarchical, wherein a subtask is further comprised of a set of other constituent subtasks. [0056]: other subtasks may be conditioned on a user selection for each of subtasks 436 and 442. As an example, a different selected meal at subtask 436 may change the ingredients of grocery shopping subtask 438. Similarly, a changed selection at subtask 442 may result in different cooking instructions); and/or a content inheritance relationship, pointing to a third execution content, wherein both the third execution content and the first execution content belong to the first subtask, and the first execution content is obtained by revising on the basis of the third execution content.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chatterjee and Mao with the method of, when a first subtask depends on a second subtask and a first execution content belongs to the first subtask, the content relationship information of the first execution content further comprises: a content dependency relationship, pointing to a second execution content, from which the first execution content is derived, in execution contents owned by the second subtask as taught by Jauhar because it would enable the user to adapt the subtasks (Jauhar, [0056]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterjee and Mao as applied to claim 15 above and in view of De Biswas et al (US 2013/0144566 A1).
Claim 17: The combination of Chatterjee and Mao discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 15 above. Chatterjee and Mao do not expressly disclose the following limitations but De Biswas which also discloses a collaborative platform teaches, when a user initiates a request to view through a server side or a client side, extracting a corresponding creation content block from the first execution content and/or the second execution content, and automatically assembling it into the digital work draft conforming to a preset format according to the preset content block display attribute and content block relationship attribute in the task template associated with the collaborative creation task (see [0016]: The rendering of the sub-component may include disposing the sub-component in an assembly of sub-components. The way of presenting the representation of each of the at least one version of a sub-component may include presenting a low-resolution version of the sub-component that includes a visual indication of changes associated with the at least one version. [0026]: system may further include an interface port of the 3D model space for receiving requests from a plurality of client computers over the network for user access to components in the 3D model space and for converting the component from the common format to separate formats that may be suitable for representing at least two dimensions of the 3D model space in an electronic display of each of a plurality of types of client computers. [0164] FIG. 28 depicts a flow chart of a method 2800 for transmitting a sub-space in a target format. At 2802, the method 2800 may provide a hierarchical 3D model space that may include a plurality of nodes and at least one branch. Each node may include at least one version of a sub-component. At 2804, the method 2800 may receive a request from a user for a sub-space of the 3D model space. At 2806, the method 2800 may retrieve the requested sub-space in a source format. At 2808, the method 2800 may translate the requested sub-space into a target format. At 2810, the method 2800 may transmit the requested sub-space to the user. Optionally, at 2812 and 2814, the method 2800 may receive the sub-space that may include at least one updated sub-component from the user and translate the received at least one updated sub-component into the source format. Optionally, at 2816, the method may integrate the received at least one updated sub-component into the 3D model space.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chatterjee and Mao with the method of when a user initiates a request to view through a server side or a client side, extracting a corresponding creation content block from the first execution content and/or the second execution content, and automatically assembling it into the digital work draft conforming to a preset format according to the preset content block display attribute and content block relationship attribute in the task template associated with the collaborative creation task as taught by De Biswas because it “ enables multiple users to interact on a project by project basis in the collaborative design, modeling and testing of complex 3-Dimensional, or "3D", models while maintaining version control of all elements of the project in a hierarchical fashion” (De Biswas, [0006]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
X Technical Binding of Creator-Subtask-Creation Information: It clearly defines the correspondence among "first subtask - first creator - first creation information" and "second subtask- second creator-second creation information", and specifies that "the second creator shall input content based on the first creation information". This binding requires the server to implement technical logic including "creator identity verification, subtask permission assignment, and associated storage of creation information" (e.g., marking the first creation information as "preliminary associated data" for the second subtask to be accessed by the second creator). It belongs to technical data flow management rather than an abstract rule for "arranging the order of human collaboration".
X Technical Carrier for Cross-Terminal Information Interaction: It implicitly includes the technical process where "the server, as an intermediate node, receives the first creation information from the first terminal (used by the first creator) and then pushes it to the second terminal (used by the second creator) along with the second subtask". This involves technical operations such as network data transmission and terminal permission synchronization, rather than mere arrangement of human communication.
However, the examiner is not persuaded. Examiner points out that claim 1 does not require any servers or computing components to perform the abstract idea. Also, using a server or terminal to transmit information is not sufficient to render the claims less abstract. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant argues that
X Triggering and Execution of State Updates: It clearly specifies that "receiving the first creation information" is the sole technical trigger for changing the state of the second subtask from "non-creatable" to "creatable". The server must real-time monitor the "receipt status of the first creation information for the first subtask" and automatically modify the state field of the second subtask in the database (e.g., updating from "0" to "1"). This belongs to technical state switching rather than a mental process of "human judgment on whether to allow creation".
However, the examiner is not persuaded. The claims do not include the features of “server must real-time monitor the "receipt status of the first creation information for the first subtask" and automatically modify the state field of the second subtask in the database (e.g., updating from "0" to "1").” Furthermore, a server used in its ordinary capacity to update a database amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Applicant argues that
X Technical Mapping Between States and Operation Permissions: It limits that "the second subtask in the non-creatable state does not open the editing interface" and "only the subtask in the creatable state allows the second creator to input information". This permission control requires the server to implement technical association between "subtask state fields and creator operation interfaces" (e.g., disabling the response function of the edit button when the state is "non-creatable"), rather than an abstract permission rule.
However, the examiner is not persuaded. The claims do not include the features of "the second subtask in the non-creatable state does not open the editing interface". As recited, the limitations are directed to an abstract idea of managing collaboration/interactions between creators which is an example of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant argues that:
3.1. Solving a Clear Technical Problem
Aiming at the technical pain points of "low efficiency and high error rate in manual integration of scattered creation content from multiple creators" (e.g., missing association relationships or format confusion when manually copying the first/second creation information), the technical means of "automatically generating a digital work draft" avoids technical defects of manual operations. This problem belongs to technical difficulties in the field of "digital content processing" rather than a non-technical issue of "human management processes".
3.2. Adopting Specific Technical Means
It implicitly includes the technical logic wherein "the server extracts structured data (such as text paragraphs and model parameters) from the first/second creation information and automatically assembles the data according to preset formats (e.g., HTML, HDF)". These operations all require customized program code for implementation, rather than abstract "result organization".
3.3. Producing Verifiable Technical Effects
> Efficiency Improvement: Automatic generation of the work draft eliminates the time cost of manual integration. For example, in the collaborative creation of a patent evaluation report, manual integration takes 2 hours while automatic generation takes only 10 minutes; > Error Rate Reduction: Technical means ensure that the association relationships of creation information are not lost and formats are unified, reducing the error rate from 15% (manual integration) to less than 0.5%;
> Direct Applicability: The generated digital work draft can be directly previewed, stored, or transmitted, forming a technical closed loop of "creation-integration-output" rather than an abstract "management effect".
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. The claimed features mere provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, recited at a high-level of generality. The claims lack any technical inner workings on how “automatically generating a digital work draft” solves a technical problem. The limitations of the claims as whole lack any additional elements when considered individually and in combination improve the computer or technology. Examiner maintains that the claims are patent ineligible
Examiner further maintains that the claims here merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, recited at a high-level of generality which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues that:
The Examiner previously argued that "state determination and task assignment can be simulated with paper and pencil". However, the technical solution of amended Claim 1 completely rules out this possibility:
"Dynamic update of creation states" requires the server to real-time monitor the data receipt status and automatically modify fields, which cannot be achieved by human paper- and-pencil recording (failure to achieve "real-time triggering");
"Automatic generation of digital work drafts" requires parsing structured data, converting formats, and integrating content, which cannot be completed by manual operations (e.g., inability to quickly convert multiple types of creation information into a work draft in a unified format);
Even if humans attempt to simulate the process, they cannot achieve the technical effect of "real-time collaboration among multiple creators and instant output of work drafts", further proving the technical nature of the solution.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. The claims do not include the features of the server to real-time monitor the data receipt status and automatically modify fields or parsing structured data, converting formats, and integrating content. The claim limitations at best provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, recited at a high-level of generality which fail to indicate a technical solution. Examiner maintains that the claims are patent ineligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAAME BALLOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1359. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
MAAME BALLOU
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/MAAME BALLOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626