Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
Claims 1 – 20, are pending.
The effective filing date of the present application is 02/02/2020.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments and remarks of 05/08/2026 have been entered.
Applicant has not filed a terminal disclaimer within this reply; therefore, a previously noted nonstatutory double patenting rejection remains documented.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of analysis, the instant claims are directed towards a system and a method. Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the claims set forth a method for managing work units and records among users in a collaborative environment. A collaborative environment in which a user reviews content and inputs information indicating working on the content illustrates managing personal behavior or relationships, or interactions between people, which are included within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11, which is illustrative of claim 1, contains those elements that define certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas, (and are highlighted below):
A method to generate work unit records in a collaboration environment, the method comprising:
storing, in non-transitory electronic storage, environment state information maintaining a collaboration environment, the environment state information including a first work unit record describing a first unit of work, the first work unit record including a digital content item expected to be reviewed in order to complete the first unit of work;
establishing one or more network connections between a remotely located client computing platform and a server;
effectuating communication of information from the server to the remotely located client computing platform over the one or more network connections to cause the remotely located client computing platform to present an instance of a user interface of the collaboration environment, wherein the digital content item is made accessible through the user interface;
generating, at the server and responsive to obtaining user input information conveying user input on, or relating to, the digital content item through the user interface presented at the remotely located client computing platform, a second work unit record for a second unit of work, the second work unit record being subordinate to the first work unit record within a record hierarchy; and
effectuating storage of information defining the second work unit record in the non-transitory electronic storage.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the following additional elements:
the system comprising: non-transitory electronic storage;
a digital item;
one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: establish one or more network connections between a remotely located client computing platform and a server; effectuate communication of information from the server to the remotely located client computing platform over the one or more network connections to cause the remotely located client computing platform to present an instance of a user interface; and,
effectuate storage of information in the non-transitory electronic storage.
These elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0019, 0049, 0051. 0053, and 0054], and Figure 1, as filed. Applicant has also broadly defined digital within the disclosure; see [0026]. Therefore, this term too refers to information that is created, stored, or transmitted in electronic format (e.g. computer files). Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generically recited devices to perform the steps that define the abstract ideas. As discussed above, the additional elements of (the system comprising: non-transitory electronic storage; digital; one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions; one or more network connections between a remotely located client computing platform and a server; and, a user interface), are recited at a high level of generality and are instructions to apply the exception on a computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) does not provide significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2 – 8 and 12 – 18 contain further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 11. References to units of work, work unit records, user input, and digital content, (image video, PDF, text, etc.), are further recitations to core facets of the input information that is input and indicates humans working on the content and interacting among others. Therefore, they are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships, or interactions between people. The work units tracked are performed based on the instructions from one employee to another. Furthermore, these claims just recite implementing the abstract ideas on a computer. This not sufficient to provide for integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Dependent claims 9, 10, 19, and 20, contain further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 11. References to a user interface and displays the are held as meaning to simply display the data to a user, using an ordinary component. This amounts to no more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generically recited devices. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) does not provide significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, for the reasons set above, claims 1 – 20 are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without reciting significantly more.
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 – 9 and 11 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni (US 2018/0075387), in view of Van Der Ploeg (2013/0151421).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Kulkarni discloses: a system configured to generate work unit records in a collaboration environment, the system comprising: non-transitory electronic storage storing environment state information maintaining a collaboration environment; (see [0028] disclosing an operating environment for collaboration, see also Fig 1. Kulkarni includes the above components at [0057] and Figure 8);
the environment state information including a first work unit record describing a first unit of work, the first work unit record including a digital content item expected to be reviewed in order to complete the first unit of work; (see [0024] detailing tasks and work items associated with a project; noting that a tasks is one example of a work unit as defined within the instant Specification at [0026]. Further see [0031-0032] detailing electronic documents that a user interacts with – thereby disclosing digital content to be reviewed);
establish one or more network connections between a remotely located client computing platform and a server; effectuate communication of information from the server to the remotely located client computing platform over the one or more network connections to cause the remotely located client computing platform to present an instance of a user interface of the collaboration environment, wherein the digital content item is made accessible through the user interface; (see [0030] disclosing network connections to a server and [0050] adding remote and distributed systems; see [0034] and Figures 2A and 2B detailing a user interface comprising action item information (work units). [0048] adds user interface display examples where an application (environment) is opened and documents accessed);
and effectuate storage of information defining the second work unit record in the non-transitory electronic storage; (see [0055] disclosing storage and retrieval for user interaction created data; [0061] details volatile and nonvolatile media).
Not disclosed by Kulkarni is generate, at the server and responsive to obtaining user input information conveying user input on, or relating to, the digital content item through the user interface presented at the remotely located client computing platform, a second work unit record for a second unit of work, the second work unit record being subordinate to the first work unit record within a record hierarchy.
However, Van Der Ploeg discloses a method of updating projects in accordance with inputs and teaches relationships between tasks, or as taught, as dependencies. See [0020] teaching dependencies among tasks and the order of completion to be followed. Further, Van der Ploeg discloses “Next, the user may access the master project plan, and provide an input relating to a proposed change to the master project plan.” [0005]. Additionally, “a method of updating a project plan in accordance with input received from a user account is presented.” [0006]. This is further illustrated at Fig 6, where an input to a digital file creates a new task to be completed. The instant claims recite, first, a second unit of work, responsive to obtaining user input on the content disclosed above. Because this input and new task are displayed within Fig 6 - a display interface for analyzing proposed changes to the project plan – this disclosure within Vander Ploeg is deemed to disclose generate, at the server and responsive to obtaining user input information conveying user input on, or relating to, the digital content item through the user interface presented at the remotely located client computing platform.
Second, while the second work unit record may be subordinate to the first work unit record within a record hierarchy, the claim elements do not perform this action. The claim merely touches upon a facet that the second work unit is subordinate in some regard. A subordinate work unit record disclosed and defined as “individual work unit records in the individual sets of work unit records may be subordinate to other individual work unit records in the individual sets of work unit records” throughout the disclosure. Specification [0027] adds “a work unit record may be restricted from access by one or more users unless and/or until a subordinate work unit record is completed and/or started.” [0046] adds, “[t]he second unit of work may be generated via a work unit record which may be specified as being subordinate to a work unit record of the first unit of work in FIG. 3.” However, Fig 3 adds nothing to support work records working to generate new records subordinate to others. Therefore, the Examiner must rely on the interpretation that “a work unit record may be restricted from access by one or more users unless and/or until a subordinate work unit record is completed and/or started.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate subtask with a hierarchical structure per the method of Van Der Ploeg, within Kulkarni’s collaboration method and system because this leads to the intended result of updates, edits, and tasks being done in the necessary order. Both the cited prior art and the instant application understand the dependencies among work units (tasks) and rely on some tasks being completed before others can start, as detailed at This is congruent with the description provided in the instant Specification, at [0026]. Van Der Ploeg further teaches the importance of tasks that are related hierarchically. See [0003]).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the combination of Kulkarni and Van Der Ploeg discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, above.
Further disclosed by Kulkarni is wherein the second work unit record includes an instance of the digital content item; (see [0023] teaching a work item being generated from user input in another work unit. [0024] continues teaching creation of the work unit and [0025] details linking the documents).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the combination of Kulkarni and Van Der Ploeg discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, above.
Further disclosed by Kulkarni is wherein the user input includes one or more comments embedded in the digital content item; (see [0041] teaching embedding a link (a ‘string’ – a comment) into another document. See also Fig 4B and “create work item” ‘408 associated with a string).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combination of Kulkarni and Van Der Ploeg discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, above.
Further disclosed by Kulkarni is wherein the user input includes text identifying the digital content item; (see [0032] teaching a user interacting with an electronic document by inputting text).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the combination of Kulkarni and Van Der Ploeg discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, above.
Further disclosed by Kulkarni is wherein the user input information further includes input content of the user input, and wherein the second work unit record is generated to include the input content; (first, see [0036] where a work extraction system receives a string comprising information associated with an action item – a task, (or work unit). Next, see [0039] detailing a work generator, generating a work item. Last, see [0041] where the system embeds a link to the work unit into a document. See also Figures 4A through 5A, illustrating the creation of a new task, within a parent task).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the combination of Kulkarni and Van Der Ploeg discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, above.
Not disclosed by Kulkarni is identifying a user as an assignor of the first work unit record; and assigning the second work unit record to the user.
However, Van Der Ploeg discloses a method of updating projects in accordance with inputs and suggest tasks assigned to team members. See [0023]. See also [0040] teaching members only making changes to tasks assigned to them).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manage assignment of work units (tasks) per the method of Van Der Ploeg, within Kulkarni’s collaboration method and system because this leads to the intended result of proper management of the dependency and relationships of tasks and users, important within a collaborative environment as detailed at [0020].
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the combination of Kulkarni and Van Der Ploeg discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, above.
Further disclosed by Kulkarni is wherein the digital content item is an image file, a video file, an audio file, or a text document; (see [0031] detailing electronic documents (digital content) includes word documents and text input.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the combination of Kulkarni and Van Der Ploeg discloses all the limitations of claims 7 and 17, above.
Further disclosed by Kulkarni is wherein the digital content item is the text document; (see [0031] detailing electronic documents (digital content) includes word documents and text input.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the combination of Kulkarni and Van Der Ploeg discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, above.
Further disclosed by Kulkarni is wherein the user interface further displays one or more other work unit records; (see Fig 5B illustrating an example user interface element displayed in an application user interface when a work item is generated).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni, in view of Van Der Ploeg, further in view of Laderer (2017/0323350).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the combination of Kulkarni and Van Der Ploeg discloses all the limitations of claims 9 and 19, above.
Not disclosed is wherein the user interface further displays the one or more other work unit records based on individual start dates and/or due dates.
However, Laderer discloses a work management platform that displays workflows by roles and teaches filtering via an interface, see [0058] and suggest due dates, at [0067]. See also Fig 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display work units by due dates per the method of Laderer, within Kulkarni’s collaboration method and system because these recited dates are common and important information in collaborative work and an ordered list by these dates is one of many effective formats in which to view project elements, as discussed at [0067].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments discuss rejection of prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See page 7. Applicant’s arguments contend that the as originally filed are patent eligible. Applicant comments on Prong One analysis, pages 7-8, adds a brief restatement of the prior rejection, page 9, and on page 10, argues, “that the rejection fails under Prong One because the Office Action fails to show the claims “recite” an abstract idea.” Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. MPEP 2106.04(2)(A)(1). After considerable evaluation, the Examiner maintains that the original claims set forth a method for managing work units and records among users in a collaborative environment. A collaborative environment in which a user reviews content and inputs information indicating working on the content illustrates managing personal behavior or relationships, or interactions between people, which are included within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the Examiner continues to deem the claims to recite an abstract idea and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant adds remarks that “[t]he Identification of Multiple Abstract Ideas is Procedurally Deficient for Lack of Clarity and Specificity”. See page 11. This argument is misplaced and not persuasive. Applicant is focused on language such as the word “these” to somehow confuse the concept that the claims can recite abstract ideas. The claims are detailed above to indicate terms that set forth certain methods of organizing human activity. Whether these terms indicate managing personal behavior of users within the collaborative environment, or are descriptive of their relationships (who worked on or who is to complete the work), or describe the several interactions among users, the claims describe a collaborative environment in which a user reviews content and inputs information indicating working on the content. Therefore, the claims recite the sub-grouping of managing personal behavior or relationships, or interactions between people, which are included within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the Examiner continues to deem the claims to recite a single grouping of abstract ideas and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant next argues that “[t]he Office Action Does Not Establish The Concepts Or The Lines Of Claim Prose Are Abstract Ideas.” See page 12. Applicant’s arguments here are not persuasive. First, this concept - managing work units and records – is addressed (set forth or described) when recited as “generate work unit records”, “a digital content item expected to be reviewed”, and, “obtaining user input information conveying user input on, or relating to, the digital content”. These are all concepts illustrative of, and performed within a collaborative environment to, manage certain work units and records. This collaborative environment in which users review content and input information indicating working on the content illustrates managing work units and records. Therefore, they illustrate managing personal behavior or relationships, or interactions between people, which are included within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant next comments on Prong Two analysis. See page 13. Applicant again comments regarding separate abstract ideas. Similar to the Examiner’s remarks above, this line of argument is not persuasive. Applicant again would like to focus on language such as the word “these” to somehow confuse the concept that the claims can recite abstract ideas. The claims are detailed above to indicate terms that set forth certain methods of organizing human activity. Whether these terms indicate managing personal behavior of users within the collaborative environment, or are descriptive of their relationships (who worked on or who is to complete the work), or describe the several interactions among users, the claims describe a collaborative environment in which a user reviews content and inputs information indicating working on the content. Therefore, the claims recite the sub-grouping of managing personal behavior or relationships, or interactions between people, which are included within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the Examiner continues to deem the claims to recite a single grouping of abstract ideas and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Further to Applicant’s arguments here are the repeated conflating of Prong One and Prong Two analysis. Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception.
At Prong Two, of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Applicant’s claims recite additional elements that are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). These include: the system comprising: non-transitory electronic storage; a digital item; one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: establish one or more network connections between a remotely located client computing platform and a server; effectuate communication of information from the server to the remotely located client computing platform over the one or more network connections to cause the remotely located client computing platform to present an instance of a user interface; and, effectuate storage of information in the non-transitory electronic storage.
Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0019, 0049, 0051. 0053, and 0054], and Figure 1, as filed. Applicant has also broadly defined digital within the disclosure; see [0026]. Therefore, this term too refers to information that is created, stored, or transmitted in electronic format (e.g. computer files). Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea and Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant next argues rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See page 14. Applicant contends that cited prior art (Van Der Ploeg) does not describe certain elements. See page 15. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant first argues that Van Der Ploeg fails to describe input into a digital content item. Page 15. This argument is not persuasive. First, the instant claims themselves do not describe the above element as Applicant argues. Digital content items include “images, documents, etc.”, as defined at [0003], as well as “an image, a video, an audio file, a pdf, a word document, and/or other digital content items”, [0026]. Van der Ploeg discloses an interface for displaying content “to be modified”. See [0068]. Further, this content may show “Gantt charts, spreadsheets, grids, text files, graphs, flowcharts, and/or animations to display and compare proposed changes.” [0068]. Van der Ploeg adds, “[e]mbodiments of this invention relate generally to updating a project plan in accordance with input received from a user.” [0003]. Thus, Van der Ploeg is deemed to teach “a digital content item expected to be reviewed” as recited within the instant claims.
Applicant next argues that “Van Der Ploeg Fails To Describe Generating A New Record For Work Based On Input Into A Digital Content Item.” See page 16. This argument is not persuasive. The instant claims recite, a second unit of work, responsive to obtaining user input on the content disclosed above. Again, Van der Ploeg discloses “Next, the user may access the master project plan, and provide an input relating to a proposed change to the master project plan.” [0005]. Additionally, “a method of updating a project plan in accordance with input received from a user account is presented.” [0006]. This is further illustrated at Fig 6, where an input to a digital file creates a new task to be completed. Because this input and new task are displayed within Fig 6 - a display interface for analyzing proposed changes to the project plan – this disclosure within Vander Ploeg is deemed to disclose generate, at the server and responsive to obtaining user input information conveying user input on, or relating to, the digital content item through the user interface presented at the remotely located client computing platform.
Applicant next argues that “Van Der Ploeg Fails To Describe Generating A New Record So That It Is Subordinate To A Record That Includes The Source Of User Input.” This argument is not accurate and also not persuasive. The instant claims do not recite a “dynamic addition of records to a record hierarchy” as is argued on page 17. While the second work unit record may be subordinate to the first work unit record within a record hierarchy, the claim elements do not perform this action. The claim merely touches upon a facet that the second work unit is subordinate in some regard. A subordinate work unit record disclosed and defined as “individual work unit records in the individual sets of work unit records may be subordinate to other individual work unit records in the individual sets of work unit records” throughout the disclosure. Specification [0027] adds “a work unit record may be restricted from access by one or more users unless and/or until a subordinate work unit record is completed and/or started.” [0046] adds, “[t]he second unit of work may be generated via a work unit record which may be specified as being subordinate to a work unit record of the first unit of work in FIG. 3.” However, Fig 3 adds nothing to support work records working to generate new records subordinate to others. Therefore, the Examiner must rely on the interpretation that “a work unit record may be restricted from access by one or more users unless and/or until a subordinate work unit record is completed and/or started.” Van der Ploeg discloses this element as the Examiner noted within the interview conducted on 05/05/2026. Germane to the above interpretation, Van der Ploeg discloses “Project plans may define relationships between tasks in a hierarchy and may include dependency information between tasks. For example, aspects of one task may depend upon the completion of another task, or the tasks may need to be completed in parallel with each other. (Emphasis added). [0020]. See also [0031]: “the previous project plans 124 and the proposed changes to the project plan 128 may be complete copies of the project plan wherein changes have been made such that the change defines how they are different from the master project plan 126.” Because Van der Ploeg describes the state of the art for collaborative work management and changes and inputs to plans, this reference is deemed to disclose the broad recitations to “the second work unit record being subordinate to the first work unit record within a record hierarchy”. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant next argues rejection of claims 5 and 15. Applicant would like to rely on previous arguments regarding Van der Ploeg. See page 18. In view of the Examiner’s remarks regarding the suitability of reference Van der Ploeg, above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner has added discussion as to Van der Ploeg within the rejection for all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 within this Office Action, to better show how the claims are disclosed, taught, or suggested within the same cited prior art. The rejections herein are the same as proffered within the previous Office Action.
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 DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights