DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed April 20, 2026. Claims 1–7 are amended. Currently, claims 1–7 are pending.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s Response is not sufficient to overcome each previous objection for informalities. Accordingly, the previous objections are maintained, and Applicant is directed to the relevant explanation below.
Applicant’s Response is not sufficient to overcome each previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Accordingly, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are maintained, and Applicant is directed to the relevant explanation below.
Further, Applicant’s Response necessitates new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and Applicant is similarly directed to the relevant explanation below.
Upon reconsideration of the previous rejection of claims 1–2 under 35 U.S.C. 101, the rejection is withdrawn. More particularly, the additional elements of independent claim 1, including the elements for “determining” and “updating”, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two because the additional elements apply or use the recited abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
With respect to the previous rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 1, Applicant first asserts that the reference to Neagu does not disclose the elements for “determining” and “updating”. Examiner notes, however, that Neagu is not asserted as disclosing the argued limitations. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive because the remarks are not commensurate with the rejection of record.
Applicant next asserts that the reference to Savage does not disclose the elements for “determining” and “updating”. More particularly, Applicant asserts that the reference to Savage is limited to file-level version control rather than content analysis related to user inputs and stored information. Examiner disagrees. As noted by Applicant, paragraph 42 of Savage discloses synchronizing data changes in files by limiting updates to blocks of data that have been changed. Further, paragraphs 132 and 141, as previously cited, disclose document management and synchronization in the context of collaborative editing of document files amongst groups of users, and paragraph 141 explicitly states that the “platform stores the markups,” thereby indicating that the platform stores changes within a document rather than storing the entirety of a modified document as a new version. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive because the reference to Savage discloses content analysis in collaborative editing.
Applicant’s remaining remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim Objections
Claims 1–2 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the claims include numerous instances of inconsistent claim terminology. For example, claim 1 recites “a request for … information” in the element reciting “receiving an identity” and “retrieving the information from the storage device”. However, claim 1 then recites “sending the retrieved information”. Examiner submits that the referenced “information” is the same information in each element, such that renaming the “information” as “retrieved information” creates potential confusion in the claim. Examiner recommends amending claim 1 to recite “sending the
Claim 2 recites “receiving … a selection of one of the document templates”, “retrieving … according to the received selection of the one of the document templates”, and “sending the retrieved one of the document templates”. In view of the inconsistent claim language identified above, Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “retrieving … according to the
Claim 4 recites “receiving a list of document templates” and “displaying the received list of document templates”. Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “displaying the .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the stored information” in the element reciting “determining whether content”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] stored information”.
Claim 1 further recites “the respective other user” in the element reciting “updating”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] a respective other user” in the element reciting “updating”.
In view of the above, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, inherits the deficiencies described above. As a result, claim 2 is similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “a request for information” and “the information” in the element reciting “receiving second information”. However, claim 3 previously recites “sending a request for information from a server via a communication network, the information being identified by the selected document”. As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the “request” and “information” in the element reciting “receiving second information” to reference the previous instances of “request” and “information” or intends to introduce a second, different “request” and/or “information”.
For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting “receiving second information from the server at a second portable personal computing device when a second user sends a second request for the information from the server, the information being identified by a document selected by the second user”.
In view of the above, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4–7, which depend from claim 3, inherits the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 4–7 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “the retrieved one of the document templates” in the element reciting “receiving from the server”. Although claim 4 previously recites “a selected one of the document templates” in the element reciting “receiving from the first user” and “the selected one of the document templates” in the element reciting “sending”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the retrieved one of the document templates” in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 4 is interpreted as reciting “receiving from the server the selected one of the document templates”.
Claim 6 recites “a user with a field worker role” and “a user with a field supervisor or manager role”. However, claim 5, from which claim 6 depends, previously recites “a user with a field supervisor or manager role” and “a user with a field worker role”. As a result, the scope of claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the identified recitations of claim 6 to reference the identified recitations of claim 5 or intends to introduce second, different users with a field worker role or a field supervisor or manager role.
For purposes of examination, claim 6 is interpreted as reciting “wherein the method further comprises tracking whether [[a]] the user with [[a]] the field worker role has completed a form and flags to [[a]] the user with [[a]] the field supervisor or manager role”.
Claim 7 recites “a current location” in line 3, “the current location and current time” in lines 4–5, and “the current location and a current time” in line 5. As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of “a current time” to reference the previous recitation of “current time” or intends to introduce a second, different “current time”.
Claim 7 further recites “an input” in line 3. However, claim 3, from which claim 7 depends, previously recites “receiving an input”. As a result, the scope of claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of claim 7 to reference the recitation of claim 3 or intends to introduce a second, different “input”.
For purposes of examination, claim 7 is interpreted as reciting “when [[an]] the input is uploaded to the server and to upload to the server the current location and a current time for the server to store the current location and [[a]] the current time in a record in association with the input.”
In view of the above, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant thoroughly review the claims for compliance with the requirements set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neagu et al. (U.S. 2014/0052487) in view of SAVAGE et al. (U.S. 2015/0127607).
Claim 1: Neagu discloses a computer implemented method of completion of respective risk related documents used when performing a job in the field by each of a plurality of users (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 20, wherein a computer facilitates completion of documents by remote workers, and wherein the term “risk” is afforded limited patentable weight as a label that does not patentably limit the recited documents), said method comprising:
storing in a storage device of a server information associated with a risk related document for users in the field to complete when making a risk assessment of the job (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 15, in view of paragraphs 3 and 20, wherein project forms, which include page documents for performing subtasks, are stored in a server storage device);
receiving an identity of a user of a requesting portable personal computing device along with a request for a download of information associated with a selected document from one of a plurality of portable personal computing devices remotely located in the field (See FIG. 7 and paragraph 31, in view of paragraphs 17–18, wherein identifiers associated with the worker are used in combination with document requests to retrieve documents that are accessible to a given user, and wherein information submitted by a given user is stored such that the information is accessible to secondary users; see also FIG. 1 and paragraph 15, wherein each worker interacts with the system using a mobile device);
retrieving the information from the storage device in response to the request (See FIG. 7 and paragraph 31, in view of paragraphs 17–18, wherein identifiers associated with the worker are used in combination with document requests to retrieve documents that are accessible to a given user, and wherein information submitted by a given user is stored such that the information is accessible to secondary users);
sending the retrieved information to the requesting portable personal computing device (See FIG. 7 and paragraph 31, in view of paragraphs 17–18, wherein identifiers associated with the worker are used in combination with document requests to retrieve documents that are accessible to a given user, and wherein information submitted by a given user is stored such that the information is accessible to secondary users);
receiving an uploaded input from the requesting portable personal computing device, the uploaded input representing completion of the selected document by the user in relation to the job to be performed (See paragraphs 17–18, wherein the worker uploads task information indicating completion of the task); and
storing the uploaded input in relation to the selected document (See paragraphs 17–18, wherein the worker uploads task information indicating completion of the task, and wherein the uploaded information is stored). Neagu does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Savage discloses storing the uploaded input in relation to the selected document and the identity of the user of the computing device (See paragraph 133, wherein activity history tracks all file activity, including editing time and identity);
determining, by a processor of the server (See paragraph 393), whether content of the uploaded input entered by the user is already in the stored information in a database of the storage device (See paragraph 42, in view of paragraph 33, wherein only changed data blocks are updated; see also paragraphs 132 and 141); and
updating, by the processor of the server, the stored information in the database to include new information in the uploaded input that is not already in the stored information so that when there is a subsequent request for the information the new information is provided to other users to complete a document on a portable personal computing device of the respective other user (See paragraph 42, in view of paragraph 33, wherein only changed data blocks are updated, and FIG. 1 and paragraph 26, wherein agent devices include mobile devices; see also paragraphs 132 and 141).
Neagu discloses a system directed to managing dispatch forms for mobile workers. Savage discloses a system directed to managing documents in a remote worker environment. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing documents associated with remote employees. The technique of identifying and storing new content is applicable to the system of Neagu as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing documents associated with remote employees.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Savage would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Savage to the teachings of Neagu would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate remote employee document management into similar systems. Further, applying the identification and storage of new content to Neagu would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and improved document management.
Claim 3: Neagu discloses a computer implemented method of each of a plurality of users to complete respective risk related documents used when performing a job in the field (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 20, wherein a computer facilitates completion of documents by remote workers, and wherein the term “risk” is afforded limited patentable weight as a label that does not patentably limit the recited documents), said method comprising:
displaying to a first user of a portable personal computing device on a display device of the portable personal computing device a list of jobs the first user is allocated to (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 32, in view of paragraphs 3 and 20, wherein forms, which define an overall project task, are displayed to the user for selection; see also paragraph 16, wherein each mobile device may have multiple forms);
receiving an input via an input device of the portable personal computing device as a selection of one of the jobs (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 32, in view of paragraphs 3 and 20, wherein the user selects a given form from the plurality of forms, and wherein each form defines an overall project task; see also paragraph 16, wherein each mobile device may have multiple forms);
displaying to the first user on the display a plurality of documents associated with a selected job from which a selection of one of the plurality of documents can be made by the first user (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 32, in view of paragraphs 20–21, wherein jobs, which are stored as pages of a project form, are displayed to the user for selection);
receiving a selection of a document from the first user via the input device (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 32, in view of paragraphs 20–21, wherein jobs, which are stored as pages of a project form, are selected by the user);
sending a request for information from a server via a communication network, the information being identified by the selection of the document (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 17–18 and 21, wherein, upon selection of a given job page, a request is submitted);
receiving first information from the server, via the communications network (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 17–18 and 21, wherein the selected job page is received, including any information on the job page; see also FIG. 2D–E and paragraph 17–18, wherein the received information includes page field information and information previously submitted by other workers);
displaying the first information received from the server on the display device in a manner that allows for selection of items from first displayed information (See FIG. 2D–E and paragraphs 17–18 and 21, wherein the selected job page is displayed; see also FIG. 2D–E and paragraph 17–18, wherein the received information includes page field information and implicitly includes information previously submitted by other workers);
receiving from the first user, via the input device, a first input as a selection of one or more of first displayed items (See FIG. 2D–E and paragraph 21, wherein the user selects fields of the displayed page form);
receiving from the first user a second input of new information, via the input device, the new information being of a type that is suitable to send to other users in the field (See paragraphs 17–18, wherein the worker uploads task information into the form page using the mobile device);
sending the new information to the server, via the communication network (See paragraphs 17–18, wherein the worker uploads task information indicating completion of the task, and wherein the uploaded information is stored);
receiving second information from the server at a second portable personal computing device when a second user sends a request for information from the server, the information being identified by a document selected by the second user (See FIG. 2D–E and paragraphs 17–18 and 21, wherein the selected job page is displayed in response to a selection by a subsequent user, and wherein the information is displayed for workers based on an associated identity),
displaying the second information received from the server on the display device in a manner that allows for selection of second items from second displayed information (See FIG. 2D–E and paragraphs 17–18 and 21, wherein the selected job page is displayed, and wherein the information is displayed for workers based on an associated identity);
receiving from the second user third input as a selection of one or more of the second items (See FIG. 2D–E and paragraph 21, wherein the user selects fields of the displayed page form). Although Neagu implicitly discloses the second information comprising the first information and the new information (See paragraphs 17–18, wherein a subsequent co-worker may check out an updated file), Neagu does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Savage discloses wherein the second information comprises the first information sent to the first user and the new information (See paragraphs 132 and 141, wherein documents are edited, updated and accessed by multiple users; see also paragraph 42);
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Savage would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 5: As an initial matter, Examiner notes that claim 5, which is drawn to a method, does not include any method steps and further notes that the recited fields and ability to be allocated do not patentably limit any of the recited steps. The elements have been addressed only in the interest of compact prosecution.
Neagu discloses the method of claim 3, wherein a document template is able to be allocated by a user with a field supervisor or manager role to a user with a field worker role for completion; and wherein the document template comprises fields for inputting: method steps, tasks, risks and controls to be assessed by the user with the field worker role prior to commencement of the job, and the input comprises entering the method steps, the tasks, the risks and the controls using downloaded information (See paragraph 21, in view of paragraph 16, wherein users may assign document tasks to other users, and wherein manager users are disclosed; see also FIG. 2D–E, wherein document tasks include fields for inputting).
Claims 2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neagu et al. (U.S. 2014/0052487) in view of SAVAGE et al. (U.S. 2015/0127607), and in further view of Fredell et al. (U.S. 6,678,698).
Claim 2: As disclosed above, Neagu and Savage disclose the elements of independent claim 1.
Neagu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing a list of documents associated with a task or tasks from the server to the portable personal computer device (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 32, in view of paragraphs 20–21, wherein jobs, which are stored as pages of a project form, are displayed to the user for selection; see also FIG. 1);
receiving at the server a selection of one of the documents from the portable personal computer devices (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 32, in view of paragraphs 20–21, wherein jobs, which are stored as pages of a project form, are selected by the user; see also FIG. 1);
retrieving the one of the documents from the storage device according to the received selection of the one of the documents (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 17–18 and 21, wherein the selected job page is retrieved, including any information on the job page); and
sending the retrieved one of the documents from the server to the portable personal computer device (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 17–18 and 21, wherein the selected job page is received, including any information on the job page). Neagu and Savage do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Fredell discloses a document template (See col. 15, ll. 47–48 and col. 16, ll. 15–18, wherein document templates are disclosed).
As disclosed above, Neagu discloses a system directed to managing dispatch forms for mobile workers, and Savage discloses a system directed to managing documents in a remote worker environment. Fredell discloses a system directed to managing distributed information used in projects. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing information associated with distributed employees. The technique of utilizing document templates is applicable to the systems of Neagu and Savage as they each share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing information associated with remote employees.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Fredell would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Fredell to the teachings of Neagu and Savage would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate remote employee information management into similar systems. Further, applying document templates to Neagu and Savage would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and improved information management.
Claim 4: Neagu discloses the method according to claim 3, further comprising:
receiving a list of documents associated with a task or tasks from the server, via the communications network (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 32, in view of paragraphs 20–21, wherein jobs, which are stored as pages of a project form, are displayed to the user for selection; see also FIG. 1);
displaying the received list of documents on the display device in a manner that allows for selection of one of the documents (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 32, in view of paragraphs 20–21, wherein jobs, which are stored as pages of a project form, are displayed to the user for selection; see also FIG. 1);
receiving from the first user a selected one of the documents, via the input device (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 32, in view of paragraphs 20–21, wherein jobs, which are stored as pages of a project form, are selected by the user; see also FIG. 1);
sending to the server the selected one of the documents (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 17–18 and 21, wherein the selected job page is retrieved, including any information on the job page);
receiving from the server the retrieved one of the documents (See FIG. 1 and paragraphs 17–18 and 21, wherein the selected job page is retrieved, including any information on the job page),
wherein a document selected includes labels of fields in a document to be completed by the first user entering information into the document (See FIG. 2D–E). Neagu and Savage do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Fredell discloses document templates (See col. 15, ll. 47–48 and col. 16, ll. 15–18, wherein document templates are disclosed); and
wherein the document template selected preselects information in a document to be completed by the first user entering information into the document (See col. 15, ll. 47–48, wherein task templates preselect for industry and function, and col. 16, ll. 15–18, wherein checklist items are preselected according to task).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Fredell would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 6: Although Neagu discloses a user with a field worker role (See citations above), Neagu and Savage do not expressly disclose the remaining elements of dependent claim 6.
Fredell discloses wherein the method further comprises tracking whether a user has completed a form and flags to a user with a field supervisor or manager role that the user has yet to complete the form or tracks that the user has not completed the form, until the user has completed the form (See col. 15, ll. 45–65, wherein the system allows a project manager to monitor tasks and task status, and wherein managers are notified of overdue tasks).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Fredell would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neagu et al. (U.S. 2014/0052487) in view of SAVAGE et al. (U.S. 2015/0127607), and in further view of Lichti (U.S. 2015/0066557).
Claim 7: As disclosed above, Neagu and Savage disclose the elements of independent claim 3. Although Neagu discloses a portable personal computing device (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 15), Neagu does not disclose the remaining elements of claim 7.
Savage discloses further comprising: accessing a GPS unit of the personal computing device to determine a current location of the personal computing device (See paragraph 149, wherein GPS asset tracking is disclosed with respect to mobile devices) and to upload to the server the current time for the server to store the current time in a record in association with the input (See paragraph 133, wherein activity history tracks all file history, including when file changes are made).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Savage would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Neagu and Savage do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Lichti discloses accessing a GPS unit of the portable personal computing device to determine a current location of the portable personal computing device when the task is completed and to upload to the server the current location and current time for the server to store the current location and a current time in a record in association with the task (See paragraph 79, in view of paragraph 29, wherein worker movements are logged with respect to task completion time and location; see also FIG. 7 and paragraphs 48–49, 51–52, and 69).
As disclosed above, Neagu discloses a system directed to managing dispatch forms for mobile workers, and Savage discloses a system directed to managing documents in a remote worker environment. Lichti discloses a system directed to managing tasks with respect to mobile resources. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing information associated with distributed employees. The technique of logging time and location is applicable to the systems of Neagu and Savage as they each share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing information associated with remote employees.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Lichti would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Lichti to the teachings of Neagu and Savage would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate remote employee information management into similar systems. Further, applying time and location considerations to Neagu and Savage would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and improved information management.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights