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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending and rejected in the application.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-12 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 1 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method for querying a database system, comprising:
receiving, by the computer processor, a modification to the given query from the user of the database system, thereby forming a new query; and
updating, by the computer processor, the tree graph with the new query. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a database system”, “a computer processor”, “a computer system”, and “a display” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a database system”, “a computer processor”, “a computer system”, and “a display” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for the computer processor, “receiving, by the computer processor, a modification to the given query from the user of the database system, thereby forming a new query;” encompasses mentally a person modifying the given query to form a new query.
Next, but for the computer processor, “updating, by the computer processor, the tree graph with the new query.” encompasses mentally a person updating the tree graph with the new query. The mere nominal recitation of a computer system and database does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites
presenting, by a computer processor, a tree graph on a display of a computer system, where the tree graph represents related queries on the database system;
receiving, by the computer processor, a selection of a given node in the tree graph displayed on the display from a user of the database system;
presenting, by the computer processor, a given query, along with results for the given query, on the display, where the given query is associated with the given node;
Here, “presenting, by a computer processor, a tree graph on a display of a computer system, where the tree graph represents related queries on the database system” amounts to an insignificant application of displaying data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “receiving, by the computer processor, a selection of a given node in the tree graph displayed on the display from a user of the database system;” amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Next, “presenting, by the computer processor, a given query, along with results for the given query, on the display, where the given query is associated with the given node;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 1 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere query creation from an interface cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “presenting, by the computer processor, a given query, along with results for the given query, on the display, where the given query is associated with the given node;” step is considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “presenting, by the computer processor, a given query, along with results for the given query, on the display, where the given query is associated with the given node;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “presenting, by the computer processor, a given query, along with results for the given query, on the display, where the given query is associated with the given node;” step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, “wherein each node in the tree graph represents a different query of the database system and edges in the tree graph present relationships between queries.” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining each node in the tree graph represents a different query of the database system and edges in the tree graph present relationships between queries. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein each node in the tree graph represents a different query of the database system and edges in the tree graph present relationships between queries.” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining each node in the tree graph represents a different query of the database system and edges in the tree graph present relationships between queries. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “further comprises, for each node in the tree graph, storing an identifier for the query, the query, and results for the query in an auxiliary database.” of dependent claim 3 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 3 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, the limitation “further comprises assigning a hash value as the identifier for a particular query, where the hash value is generated by a hash function applied to the particular query” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 4 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, the limitation “wherein selecting a particular node in the tree graph displayed on the display includes retrieving a particular query and results for the particular query from the auxiliary database in response to the selection of the particular node, where the particular node represents the particular query;” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim amounts to an insignificant application of displaying data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, the limitation “displaying the particular query and results for the particular query on the display in response to the selection of the particular node.” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim amounts to an insignificant application of displaying data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 5 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, the limitation “further comprises presenting the tree graph, the given query and the results for the given query concurrently on the display, such that the tree graph is displayed in a navigation pane, the given query is displayed in a query pane and the result for the given query are displayed in a results pane.” of dependent claim 6 is abstract because the claim amounts to an insignificant application of displaying data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 6 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, the limitation “wherein receiving a modification to the given query includes a command to execute the new query in the database system, and further comprises executing the new query in accordance with the command and presenting results for the new query in the results pane of the display.” of dependent claim 7 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and displaying data. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 7 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, the limitation “wherein receiving a modification to the given query includes appending a search criterion to the given query, executing the new query in relation to the results for the given query, and adding a child node to the tree graph, where the child node representing the new query has a child relationship with a node in the tree graph representing the given query.” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 8 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, the limitation “wherein receiving a modification to the given query includes removing or amending a search criterion from the given query, executing the new query, and adding a child node to the tree graph, where the child node representing the new query has a child relationship with a node in the tree graph representing the given query.” of dependent claim 9 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 9 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, the limitation “wherein receiving a modification to the given query comprises amending an investigation timeframe for the given query, executing the new query, and updating the node representing the given query in the tree graph.” of dependent claim 10 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 10 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, “wherein updating the tree graph includes adding a child node to the tree graph, where the child node has a child relationship with anode in the tree graph representing the given query.” of dependent claim 11 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person updating the tree graph includes adding a child node to the tree graph, where the child node has a child relationship with anode in the tree graph representing the given query. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “further comprises adding at least one of a label, a tag, a color, and a comment to one or multiple nodes in the tree graph.” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person updating the tree graph includes adding a child node to the tree graph, where the child node has a child relationship with anode in the tree graph representing the given query. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 13 is ineligible:
As to step one, claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer executable instructions that, upon execution of the instructions by a processor of a computer, cause the computer to:
receive a modification to the given query from the user of the database system, thereby forming a new query; and
update the tree graph with the new query. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “a database system”, “a processor”, “a computer”, and “a display” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “a database system”, “a processor”, “a computer”, and “a display” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 13 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for the database system, “receive a modification to the given query from the user of the database system, thereby forming a new query” encompasses mentally a person modifying the given query to form a new query.
Next, “update the tree graph with the new query.” encompasses mentally a person updating the tree graph with the new query. The mere nominal recitation of a computer system and database does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 13 recites
present a tree graph on a display of a computer system, where the tree graph represents related queries on the database system;
receive a selection of a given node in the tree graph displayed on the display from a user of the database system;
present a given query, along with results for the given query, on the display, where the given query is associated with the given node;
Here, “present a tree graph on a display of a computer system, where the tree graph represents related queries on the database system;” amounts to an insignificant application of displaying data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “receive a selection of a given node in the tree graph displayed on the display from a user of the database system;” amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Next, “present a given query, along with results for the given query, on the display, where the given query is associated with the given node;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 13 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere query creation from an interface cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 13 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “present a given query, along with results for the given query, on the display, where the given query is associated with the given node;” step is considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “present a given query, along with results for the given query, on the display, where the given query is associated with the given node;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “present a given query, along with results for the given query, on the display, where the given query is associated with the given node;” step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
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 of this title, 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, 2, 6-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simitsis et al. U.S. Patent (2017/0004173; hereinafter: Simitsis) in view of Li et al. U.S. Patent (5,911,138; hereinafter: Li)
Claims 1 and 13
As to claims 21, 28, and 35, Simitsis discloses a computer-implemented method for querying a database system, comprising:
presenting, by a computer processor, a tree graph on a display of a computer system, where the tree graph represents related queries on the database system (Figure 6A, paragraph[0036], the reference describe displaying a query tree on an interface.);
receiving, by the computer processor, a selection of a given node in the tree graph displayed on the display from a user of the database system (paragraph[0036], the reference describes a user selecting a node on the graph.);
Simitsis does not appear to explicitly disclose presenting, by the computer processor, a given query, along with results for the given query, on the display, where the given query is associated with the given node;
receiving, by the computer processor, a modification to the given query from the user of the database system, thereby forming a new query; and
updating, by the computer processor, the tree graph with the new query.
However, Li discloses presenting, by the computer processor, a given query, along with results for the given query, on the display, where the given query is associated with the given node (Figure 3B, column 6, lines 24-32, the reference describes presenting results of a query and the query tree on an interface.);
receiving, by the computer processor, a modification to the given query from the user of the database system, thereby forming a new query (column 7, lines 39-65, the reference describes the user editing an element on the query tree.); and
updating, by the computer processor, the tree graph with the new query (Figure 5B, element 328, column 7, lines 39-65, the reference describes the user editing an element on the query tree. The tree is changed (i.e., updated, as claimed) and displayed on the interface.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Simitsis with the teachings of Li to modify query trees on an interface which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Simitsis with the teachings of Li to efficiently determine the identification of the sources that cause a particular problem (Li: column 1, lines 21-25]).
Claim 2
As to claim 2, the combination of Simitsis and Li discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Li further disclose wherein each node in the tree graph represents a different query of the database system and edges in the tree graph present relationships between queries (column 5, lines 8-24, the reference describes the child nodes (i.e., each node in the graph tree, as claimed) represent different query statements.).
Claim 6
As to claim 6, the combination of Simitsis and Li discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Li further disclose presenting the tree graph, the given query and the results for the given query concurrently on the display, such that the tree graph is displayed in a navigation pane, the given query is displayed in a query pane and the result for the given query are displayed in a results pane (Figure 3D, column 6, lines 10-24, the reference discloses displaying query and query results in different panes.).
Claim 7
As to claim 7, the combination of Simitsis and Li discloses all the elements in claim 6, as noted above, and Li further disclose wherein receiving a modification to the given query includes a command to execute the new query in the database system, and further comprises executing the new query in accordance with the command and presenting results for the new query in the results pane of the display pane (Figure 3D, column 6, lines 10-24, the reference discloses displaying query and query results in different panes. The reference also shows different results (e.g., Figure 3D, elements results1 and results 2.1.1.) as the user make query modifications.).
Claim 8
As to claim 8, the combination of Simitsis and Li discloses all the elements in claim 7, as noted above, and Li further disclose wherein receiving a modification to the given query includes appending a search criterion to the given query, executing the new query in relation to the results for the given query, and adding a child node to the tree graph, where the child node representing the new query has a child relationship with a node in the tree graph representing the given query (Figure 3D, column 6, lines 1-9, the reference describes changing the query which adds more child nodes to the tree.).
Claim 9
As to claim 9, the combination of Simitsis and Li discloses all the elements in claim 7, as noted above, and Li further disclose wherein receiving a modification to the given query includes removing or amending a search criterion from the given query, executing the new query, and adding a child node to the tree graph, where the child node representing the new query has a child relationship with a node in the tree graph representing the given query (Figure 3D, column 6, lines 1-24, the reference describes modifying (i.e., amending, as claimed) the query which adds more child nodes to the tree.).
Claim 11
As to claim 11, the combination of Simitsis and Li discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Li further disclose wherein updating the tree graph includes adding a child node to the tree graph, where the child node has a child relationship with a node in the tree graph representing the given query (Figure 3D, column 6, lines 10-24, the reference describes adding more nodes to the tree based on query modifications.)
Claim 12
As to claim 12, the combination of Simitsis and Li discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Li further disclose further comprises adding at least one of a label, a tag, a color, and a comment to one or multiple nodes in the tree graph(Figure 3D, column 6, lines 10-24, the reference shows the tree has labels in figure 3D.).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simitsis et al. U.S. Patent (2017/0004173; hereinafter: Simitsis) in view of Li et al. U.S. Patent (5,911,138; hereinafter: Li) and further Joffe et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2022/0207042; hereinafter: Joffe)
Claim 3
As to claim 3, the combination of Simitsis and Li discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose further disclose for each node in the tree graph, storing an identifier for the query, the query, and results for the query in an auxiliary database.
However, Joffe discloses for each node in the tree graph, storing an identifier for the query, the query, and results for the query in an auxiliary database (paragraph[0038], the reference describes generating and storing identifiers for each query and result.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Simitsis with the teachings of Li and Joffe to identify queries and results which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Simitsis with the teachings of Li and Joffe to efficiently use query tree label nodes of a query tree and process the query tree and returns (Joffe: paragraph[0027]).
Claim 4
As to claim 4, the combination of Simitsis, Li, and Joffe discloses all the elements in claim 3, as noted above, and Joffe further discloses further comprises assigning a hash value as the identifier for a particular query, where the hash value is generated by a hash function applied to the particular query (paragraph[0028], the reference describes creating an hash identifier.).
Claim 5
As to claim 5, the combination of Simitsis, Li, and Joffe discloses all the elements in claim 3, as noted above, and Joffe further discloses wherein selecting a particular node in the tree graph displayed on the display includes retrieving a particular query and results for the particular query from the auxiliary database in response to the selection of the particular node, where the particular node represents the particular query (Figure 3, paragraph[0071], the reference describes the query tree graph and results being displayed for the user to select.); and displaying the particular query and results for the particular query on the display in response to the selection of the particular node(Figure 3, paragraph[0071], the reference describes the query tree graph and results being displayed for the user to select.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simitsis et al. U.S. Patent (2017/0004173; hereinafter: Simitsis) in view of Li et al. U.S. Patent (5,911,138; hereinafter: Li) and further Stein et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2022/0300527; hereinafter: Stein)
Claim 10
As to claim 10, the combination of Simitsis and Li discloses all the elements in claim 7, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein receiving a modification to the given query comprises amending an investigation timeframe for the given query, executing the new query, and updating the node representing the given query in the tree graph.
However, Stein discloses wherein receiving a modification to the given query comprises amending an investigation timeframe for the given query, executing the new query, and updating the node representing the given query in the tree graph (paragraph[0065], the reference describes a timeline (i.e., timeframe, as claimed) for a query.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Simitsis with the teachings of Li and Stein to store timelines of executed queries which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Simitsis with the teachings of Li and Stein to efficiently build a network topology having dynamic data visualizations for a data point timeline during investigation of an entity (Stein: paragraph[0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J. Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 April 30, 2026
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024
Prosecution Insights