DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed under 37 CFR §1.53(d) for the instant application on November 21, 2025. The Applicants have properly set forth the RCE, which has been entered into the application, and an examination on the merits follows herewith.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 30-36 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.
In particular, in claim 30, there is no antecedent basis for “the first user” recited therein. The claim previously recites a “first user identifier” but not a first user per se. Similarly, there is no antecedent basis for “the second user” recited in claim 36. The claim previously recites a “second user identifier” but not a second user per se.
Claims 31-36 depend from claim 30 and thereby include all of the limitations of claim 30. Accordingly, claims 31-36 are also considered indefinite for the same reasons as noted above with respect to claim 30.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 23-29 and 37-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9,286,637 to Keld et al. (“Keld”), over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0118001 to Bloy et al. (“Bloy”), over the article entitled, “Bubble Treemaps for Uncertainty Visualization” by Görtler et al. (“Görtler”), and also over the article entitled, “Visualizing consumption in weighted hierarchies” by Otjacques et al. (“Otjacques”).
Regarding claim 23, Keld describes an account interface system that comprises account holder customization tools that allow account holders to a modify a user interface display of account related parameters by inputting selections into a computing system (see e.g. column 1, line 61 – column 2, line 14). Like claimed, Keld particularly teaches:
determining a first total corresponding to a first user identifier, associated with a first user, and a second total corresponding to a second user identifier, associated with a second user, based on interaction data stored in a user profile database (see e.g. column 13, lines 39-60; and FIG. 16: Keld discloses that the account interface system presents a spending category user interface that depicts spending by multiple parties in selectable categories. Keld demonstrates that the interface can comprise a bar chart, reference number 162 in FIG. 16, that depicts the total spending by a first party, “Meredith,” and by a second party, “Troy.” The system thus necessarily determines a first total corresponding to a first user identifier associated with a first user, i.e. determines the total spent by a first user having the identifier “Meredith,” and determines a second total corresponding to a second user identifier associated with a second user, i.e. determines the total spent by the second user having the identifier “Troy.” Keld further suggests that the total spent by each user is determined based on individual spending transactions, i.e. interaction data, that are archived by a “receipt management module” – see e.g. column 12, lines 21-50 and column 13, lines 49-55. The storage necessary for the receipt management module to store the individual transaction data is considered a “user profile database” like claimed.);
wherein the interaction data includes (i) historical interaction data for a plurality of first user interactions corresponding to the first user identifier and a plurality of first currency amounts, and (ii) historical interaction data for a plurality of second user interactions corresponding to the second user identifier and a plurality of second currency amounts (see e.g. column 12, lines 21-50 and column 13, lines 49-55: like noted above, Keld suggests that the total spent by each user is determined based on individual spending transactions, i.e. interaction data, that is archived by a “receipt management module.” FIG. 13 of Keld demonstrates that the transaction data for each transaction comprises at least a user identifier, a data and time of the transaction, and the amount spent during the transaction. Keld thus suggests that the interaction data includes historical interaction data for a plurality of first user interactions corresponding to a first user identifier and a plurality of first currency amounts, and includes historical interaction data for a plurality of second user interactions corresponding to a second user identifier and plurality of second currency amounts.), and
wherein the first total is a sum of first user values corresponding to a time frame, and the second total is a sum of second user values corresponding to the time frame (see e.g. column 13, lines 39-60; and FIG. 16: like noted above, Keld discloses that the spending category user interface depicts spending by multiple parties in selectable categories, and particularly comprises a bar chart, reference number 162 in FIG. 16, that depicts the total spending by a first party, “Meredith,” and by a second party, “Troy.” Keld further suggests that each total is based on spending occurring during a selected time frame: the spending category user interface depicted in FIG. 16 includes various pull-down menus that understandably enable the user to select criteria by which the spending data is filtered, including a pull-down menu that enables a user to select a time frame. Accordingly, it is apparent that the first total is a sum of first user values, i.e. of Meridith’s transaction amounts, corresponding to the selected time frame. Likewise it is apparent that the second total is a sum of second user values, i.e. of Troy’s transaction amounts, corresponding to the selected time frame.);
determining a first size to display a first user portion of a user interface element and a second size to display a second user portion of a user interface element, wherein a ratio of the first size to the second size is substantially equal to a ratio of the first total to the second total, or wherein a ratio of the first size to a total of the first size and the second size is substantially equal to a ratio of the first total to a sum of the first total and the second total (see e.g. column 13, lines 39-60; and FIG. 16: like noted above, Keld discloses that the spending category user interface depicts spending by multiple parties in selectable categories, and particularly comprises a bar chart, reference number 162 in FIG. 16, that depicts the total spending by a first party, “Meredith,” and by a second party, “Troy.” Each bar in the bar chart represents a respective user, and is sized in proportion to the total amount spent by that user – see e.g. FIG. 16. Accordingly, it follows that the ratio of the size of the bar representing “Meridith” to the size of the bar representing “Troy” would be substantially equal to the ratio of the total amount spent by Meridith to the total amount spent by Troy. Generating the bar chart would thus understandably necessitate determining a first size to a display a first user portion, i.e. the bar representing Meridith, of the bar chart and a second size to display a second user portion, i.e. the bar representing Troy, of the bar chart, wherein a ratio of the first size to the second size is substantially equal to a ratio of the first total to the second total, or a ratio of the first size to a total of the first size and the second size is substantially equal to a ratio of the first total to a sum of the first total and the second total.); and
transmitting, to a user device, user interface data associated with the user interface element to be displayed on a display of the user device (see e.g. column 3, lines 50-63; column 4, line 27 – column 5, line 15; and column 7, line 63 – column 8, line 17: Keld discloses that the account interface system can be connected over a network to one or more account holder systems, and suggests that the account interface system provides various user interfaces, including the spending category user interface noted herein, to the account holder systems for display. The account interface system thus transmits, to a user device, i.e. to an account holder system, user interface data associated with a user interface element, e.g. with the bar chart of FIG. 16, to be displayed on a display of the user device.),
wherein the user interface data indicates (i) the first user portion corresponding to the first user and having the first determined size, (ii) the second user portion corresponding to the second user and having the second determined size, (iii) a connecting portion that connects the first user portion and the second user portion, and (iv) a graphical identifier for the first user for display in or adjacent to the first user portion, and a graphical identifier for the second user for display in or adjacent to the second user portion (see e.g. FIG. 16: the bar chart includes the first user portion, i.e. a first bar, corresponding to the first user “Meredith,” and includes the second user portion, i.e. a second bar, corresponding to the second user “Troy.” As noted above, the bars are each sized in proportion to the total amount spent by the respective user. Keld further demonstrates that the bar chart comprises a connecting portion, i.e. a line at the bottom of the chart, that connects the first bar and the second bar, and that each bar comprises a graphical identifier, i.e. a name, of the respective user – see e.g. FIG. 16.).
Keld discloses that such teachings can be implemented by one or more processors of a system that also comprises one or more memories communicatively coupled to the one or more processors (see e.g. column 4, lines 23-26; and column 5, lines 20-66). Such a system implementing the above-described teachings of Keld is considered a system similar to that of claim 23. However, Keld does not explicitly disclose that the interaction data also includes a first account identifier, a plurality of first user point values usable by the first and second users, a second account identifier, and a plurality of second user point values usable by the first and second users, wherein each user point value of the plurality of first user point values and the plurality of second user point values corresponds to a respective currency amount of the plurality of first currency amounts or the plurality of second currency amounts and is determined based on one or more rules related to the corresponding currency amount, as is required by claim 23. Keld also does not disclose that the first total is a sum of first user point values or that the second total is a sum of second user point values, as is further required by claim 23. Moreover, Keld does not disclose that the user interface data indicates a shape that comprises the first and second user portions and connecting portion, wherein the connecting portion is concave on opposing sides of the connecting portion, and wherein an indication of the sum of the first total and the second total is displayed in at least one of the first user portion, the second user portion, or the connecting portion, as is further required by claim 23. Keld also does not disclose that a numeric indication of the first total is displayed in or adjacent to the first user portion, and that a numeric indication of the second total is displayed in or adjacent to the second user portion, as is also required by claim 23.
Bloy generally teaches linking a first user account of a first user to a second user account of a second user (see e.g. paragraphs 0003 and 0018). Bloy discloses that the linked accounts can be loyalty accounts, and suggests that each loyalty account includes an account identifier and maintains interaction (i.e. transaction) data for a plurality of interactions associated with the respective account, wherein the plurality of interactions comprise currency amounts and respective point values that are usable by the first and second users if their loyalty accounts are linked (see e.g. paragraphs 0006-0008, 0039, 0041-0042, 0047, 0055, 0057 and 0066). Bloy suggests that each point value earned by a transaction can correspond to a respective currency amount of the transaction, and is determined based on one or more rules related to the corresponding currency amount (see e.g. paragraphs 0039 and 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Keld and Bloy before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the user interface element taught by Keld so as to represent the respective point values in linked loyalty accounts like taught by Bloy. That is, it would have been obvious to modify the interaction data stored in the user profile database taught by Keld so as to also store a respective account identifier for each respective user (i.e. a first account identifier and a second account identifier) and a plurality of user point values corresponding to the currency amounts for each respective user (i.e. a plurality of first user point values usable by the first user and the second user, and a plurality of second user point values usable by the first user and the second user), wherein each user point value, of the plurality of user point values corresponds to a respective currency amount of the plurality of currency amounts and is determined based on one or more rules related to the corresponding currency amount, as is taught by Bloy, and wherein the first total represented by the first user portion is a sum of the plurality of first user point values and the second total represented by the second user portion is a sum of the plurality of second user point values. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such linked loyalty accounts of point values because it would enable different users to share account rewards and benefits, as is evident from Bloy. It would have been advantageous to apply the user interface element taught by Keld (i.e. the bar chart, reference number 162 in FIG. 16 of Keld) to display the respective total point values of the first and second users, because this would enable a user to efficiently identify the relative contributions of each user, as is evident from Keld (see e.g. FIG. 16).
Görtler generally teaches using bubble treemaps to represent a plurality of items, wherein each item is represented by a circle having a size based on an amount associated with the item (see e.g. “Introduction” on pages 719-720, “Layout Algorithm” on page 723, and “S&P 500 Index” on page 725). Görtler discloses that the circles are enclosed by a contour (see e.g. FIG. 2(b) on page 720 and “Circular Arc Contours” on page 722). A contour enclosing two circles would thus comprise a first portion corresponding to a first item (i.e. a portion enclosing the circle representing the first item) and having a first size based on the amount associated with the first item (i.e. the amount represented by the size of first circle), a second portion corresponding to a second item (i.e. a portion enclosing the circle representing the second item) and having a second size based on the amount associated with the second item (i.e. the amount represented by the size of the second circle), and a connecting portion that connects the first portion and the second portion. Görtler particularly teaches that the connecting portion can be concave on opposing sides of the connecting portion (see e.g. FIG. 2(b)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Keld, Bloy and Görtler before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the user interface element taught by Keld and Bloy so as to instead use a bubble treemap like taught by Görtler to represent the respective total point values of the first and second users, which would comprise a shape that includes a first portion corresponding to a first item (i.e. the first user’s total point value), a second portion corresponding to a second item (i.e. the second user’s total point value), and a connecting portion that connects the first and second portions and that is concave on opposing sides of the connecting portion. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it can present information in a compact but readable representation, as is taught by Görtler (see e.g. “Introduction” on page 719).
Similar to Keld, Bloy and Görtler, Otjacques teaches using treemaps to represent a plurality of items, wherein each item can be represented by a circle (or ellipse) having a size based on an amount associated with the item (see e.g. the Abstract and section 1 “Introduction” on page 448, and “Gauges in Circular Treemaps” and section 4 “Storage ellimaps” on page 451). For example, analogous to the shape (i.e. bubble treemap) taught by Görtler, Otjacques suggests that such a treemap can comprise a number of portions (e.g. inner circles or ellipses) that each correspond to a different item (e.g. a budget category) and that have a size that corresponds to a numerical value associated with the item; Otjacques demonstrates that the treemap can also comprise a connecting portion (i.e. an outer circle or ellipse comprising the inner circles/ellipses) that connects (i.e. includes) the portions and that has a size that represents a joint total of the numerical values of the inner portions (see e.g. the Abstract and section 1 “Introduction” on page 448, “Gauges in Circular Treemaps” and section 4 “Storage ellimaps” on page 451, and Figure 6 on page 452). Otjacques suggests that the values associated with each inner portion and connecting portion can be displayed, either via a tooltip or as a label, in the associated portion (see “Main features” on pages 453-454 and Figure 13 on page 454).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Keld, Bloy, Görtler and Otjacques before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shape (i.e. bubble treemap) taught by Keld, Bloy and Görtler so as to further display the numerical values associated with each portion of the shape within that associated portion, as is taught by Otjacques. That is, it would have been obvious to include a numeric indication of the first total (i.e. the first user’s total point value) for display in or adjacent to the first user portion, a numeric indication of the second total (i.e. the second user’s total point value) for display in or adjacent to the second user portion, and an indication of the sum of the first total and the second total in the connecting portion that comprises the first user portion and the second user portion. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable the user to readily identify details of the data used to generate the shape (i.e. treemap), as is evident from Otjacques (see e.g. “Main features” on pages 453-454 and Figure 13 on page 454). Accordingly, Keld, Bloy, Görtler and Otjacques are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a system like that of claim 23, which is for providing data for presentation of a user interface element.
As per claim 24, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to apply the user interface element taught by Keld so as to represent the respective point values in linked loyalty accounts like taught by Bloy. Bloy suggests that separate records are maintained for each user, and the records are associated through a shared account linkage (see e.g. paragraphs 0006, 0039, 0041, 0047 and 0057). It thus follows that the user profile database would comprise separate records for the first user and the second user, and that the records are associated through a shared account linkage. Accordingly, the above-described combination of Keld, Bloy, Görtler and Otjacques is further considered to teach a system like that of claim 24.
As per claim 25, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to apply the user interface element taught by Keld so as to represent the respective user point values in linked loyalty accounts like taught by Bloy, wherein each user point value corresponds to a respective currency amount and is determined based on one or more rules related to the corresponding currency amount. Bloy suggests that the one or more rules for determining each user point value includes at least one of: a fixed ratio of the corresponding currency amount (e.g. a particular number of rewards points for every dollar spent), a tiered ratio based on interaction amount thresholds, or a rule determined by a type of user account (see e.g. paragraph 0039). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Keld, Bloy, Görtler and Otjacques is further considered to teach a system like that of claim 25.
As per claim 26, Keld suggests that the time frame is user-selectable via an input to the user device (see e.g. FIG. 16: the spending category user interface includes various pull-down menus that understandably enable the user to select criteria by which the data is presented, one of which is a pull-down menu that enables a user to select a time frame.). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Keld, Bloy, Görtler and Otjacques is further considered to teach a system like that of claim 26.
As per claim 27, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to modify the user interface element taught by Keld and Bloy so as to instead use a bubble treemap like taught by Görtler to represent the respective total point values of the first and second users, which would comprise a shape that includes a first portion corresponding to a first item (i.e. the first user’s total point value), a second portion corresponding to a second item (i.e. the second user’s total point value), and a connecting portion that connects the first and second portions and that is concave on opposing sides of the connecting portion. Görtler demonstrates that the connecting portion is integrally formed with its inner portions and defines a continuous visual boundary between the portions (see e.g. FIG. 2(b): Görtler demonstrates that a connecting portion, i.e. an outer contour encompassing inner portions, is integrally formed with its inner portions and defines a continuous boundary between the portions). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Keld, Bloy, Görtler and Otjacques is further considered to teach a system like that of claim 27.
As per claim 28, Otjacques suggests that the values associated with each inner portion and connecting portion of a treemap can be displayed, either via a tooltip or as a label, in the associated portion (see “Main features” on pages 453-454 and Figure 13 on page 454). As noted above, it would have been obvious to modify the shape (i.e. bubble treemap) taught by Keld, Bloy and Görtler so as to further display the numerical values associated with each portion of the shape within that associated portion, as is taught by Otjacques. That is, like noted above, it would have been obvious to include a numeric indication of the first total (i.e. the first user’s total point value) for display in the first user portion, a numeric indication of the second total (i.e. the second user’s total point value) for display in the second user portion, and an indication of the sum of the first total and the second total in the connecting portion that comprises the first user portion and the second user portion. Accordingly, the above-described combination of Keld, Bloy, Görtler and Otjacques is further considered to teach a system like that of claim 28.
As per claim 29, Keld teaches that the graphical identifier for each user comprises at least one of a visual representation of the user, an avatar, an icon or a username (see e.g. FIG. 16: Keld demonstrates that a user name is presented within each bar of the bar chart. It would have been apparent to similarly include the user name when displaying respective user point values of different users via a bubble treemap like described above.). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Keld, Bloy, Görtler and Otjacques is further considered to teach a system like that of claim 29.
Regarding claim 37, Keld describes an account interface system that comprises account holder customization tools that allow account holders to a modify a user interface display of account related parameters by inputting selections into a computing system (see e.g. column 1, line 61 – column 2, line 14). Like claimed, Keld particularly teaches:
receiving, by a system, interaction data from at least one user device, the interaction data including (i) historical interaction data for a plurality of first user interactions corresponding to a first user identifier and a plurality of first currency amounts, and (ii) historical interaction data for a plurality of second user interactions corresponding to a second user identifier and a plurality of second currency amounts (see e.g. column 13, lines 39-60; and FIG. 16: Keld discloses that the account interface system presents a spending category user interface that depicts spending by multiple parties in selectable categories. Keld demonstrates that the interface can comprise a bar chart, reference number 162 in FIG. 16, that depicts the total spending by a first party, “Meredith,” and by a second party, “Troy.” Keld further suggests that the total spent by each user is determined based on individual spending transactions, i.e. interaction data, that are archived by a “receipt management module” – see e.g. column 12, lines 21-50 and column 13, lines 49-55. FIG. 13 of Keld demonstrates that the transaction data for each transaction comprises at least a user identifier, a data and time of the transaction, and the amount spent during the transaction. Keld thus suggests that the system receives and stores historical interaction data for a plurality of first user interactions corresponding to a first user identifier and a plurality of respective first currency amounts, and also receives and stores historical interaction data for a plurality of second user interactions corresponding to a second user identifier and plurality of respective second currency amounts.);
determining, by the system, a first total as a sum of first user values corresponding to a selected time frame, and a second total as a sum of second user values corresponding to the selected time frame (see e.g. column 13, lines 39-60; and FIG. 16: like noted above, Keld discloses that the spending category user interface depicts spending by multiple parties in selectable categories, and particularly comprises a bar chart, reference number 162 in FIG. 16, that depicts the total spending by a first party, “Meredith,” and by a second party, “Troy.” Keld further suggests that each total is based on spending occurring during a selected time frame: the spending category user interface depicted in FIG. 16 includes various pull-down menus that understandably enable the user to select criteria by which the spending data is filtered, including a pull-down menu that enables a user to select a time frame. The system thus necessarily determines a first total as a sum of first user values corresponding to a selected time frame, i.e. determines the total spent by “Meredith” as a sum of Meridith’s spending amounts over the selected time frame, and determines a second total as a sum of second user values corresponding to the selected time frame, i.e. determines the total spent by “Troy” as the sum of Troy’s spending amounts over the selected time frame.);
determining, by the system, a first size for a first user portion of a user interface element and a second size for a second user portion of the user interface element, wherein a ratio of the first size to the second size is the same as a ratio of the first total to the second total, or wherein a ratio of the first size to a total of the first size and the second size is the same as a ratio of the first total to a sum of the first total and the second total (see e.g. column 13, lines 39-60; and FIG. 16: like noted above, Keld discloses that the spending category user interface depicts spending by multiple parties in selectable categories, and particularly comprises a bar chart, reference number 162 in FIG. 16, that depicts the total spending by a first party, “Meredith,” and by a second party, “Troy.” Each bar in the bar chart represents a respective user, and is sized in proportion to the total amount spent by that user – see e.g. FIG. 16. Accordingly, it follows that the ratio of the size of the bar representing “Meridith” to the size of the bar representing “Troy” would be the same as the ratio of the total amount spent by Meridith to the total amount spent by Troy. Generating the bar chart would thus understandably necessitate determining a first size to a display a first user portion, i.e. the bar representing Meridith, of the bar chart and a second size to display a second user portion, i.e. the bar representing Troy, of the bar chart, wherein a ratio of the first size to the second size is the same as a ratio of the first total to the second total, or a ratio of the first size to a total of the first size and the second size is the same as a ratio of the first total to a sum of the first total and the second total.);
generating, by the system, user interface data indicating (i) the first user portion corresponding to the first user and having the first size, (ii) the second user portion corresponding to the second user and having the second size, (iii) a connecting portion that connects the first user portion and the second user portion, (iv) a graphical identifier for the first user presented or adjacent to the first user portion, and (v) a graphical identifier for the second user presented in or adjacent to the second user portion (see e.g. FIG. 16: the bar chart includes the first user portion, i.e. a first bar, corresponding to the first user “Meredith,” and includes the second user portion, i.e. a second bar, corresponding to the second user “Troy.” As noted above, the bars are each sized in proportion to the total amount spent by the respective user. Keld further demonstrates that the bar chart comprises a connecting portion, i.e. a line at the bottom of the chart, that connects the first bar and the second bar, and that each bar comprises a graphical identifier, i.e. a name, of the respective user – see e.g. FIG. 16.); and
transmitting, by the system, the user interface data to a user device for presentation on a display of the user device (see e.g. column 3, lines 50-63; column 4, line 27 – column 5, line 15; and column 7, line 63 – column 8, line 17: Keld discloses that the account interface system can be connected over a network to one or more account holder systems, and suggests that the account interface system provides various user interfaces, including the spending category user interface noted herein, to the account holder systems for display. The account interface system thus transmits, to a user device, i.e. to an account holder system, the user interface data associated with the user interface element, e.g. with the bar chart of FIG. 16, to be displayed on a display of the user device.).
Keld thus teaches a method similar to that of claim 37. However, Keld does not explicitly disclose that the interaction data also includes a first account identifier, a plurality of first user point values usable by the first and second users, a second account identifier, and a plurality of second user point values usable by the first and second users, as is required by claim 37. Keld also does not disclose that the first total is a sum of first user point values or that the second total is a sum of second user point values, as is further required by claim 37. Moreover, Keld does not disclose that: (i) the connecting portion is concave on opposing sides of the connecting portion; (ii) an indication of a joint total that is the sum of the first total and the second total is presented within at least one of the first user portion, the second user portion, or the connecting portion; (iii) a numeric indication of the first total is displayed in or adjacent to the first user portion; and (iv) a numeric indication of the second total is displayed in or adjacent to the second user portion, as is also required by claim 37.
Bloy generally teaches linking a first user account of a first user to a second user account of a second user (see e.g. paragraphs 0003 and 0018). Bloy discloses that the linked accounts can be loyalty accounts, and suggests that each loyalty account includes an account identifier and maintains interaction (i.e. transaction) data for a plurality of interactions associated with the respective account, wherein the plurality of interactions comprise currency amounts and respective point values that are usable by the first and second users if their loyalty accounts are linked (see e.g. paragraphs 0006-0008, 0039, 0041-0042, 0047, 0055, 0057 and 0066). Bloy suggests that each point value earned by a transaction can correspond to a respective currency amount of the transaction, and is determined based on one or more rules related to the corresponding currency amount (see e.g. paragraphs 0039 and 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Keld and Bloy before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the user interface element taught by Keld so as to represent the respective point values in linked loyalty accounts like taught by Bloy. That is, it would have been obvious to modify the interaction data taught by Keld so as to also include a respective account identifier for each respective user (i.e. a first account identifier and a second account identifier) and a plurality of user point values corresponding to the currency amounts for each respective user (i.e. a plurality of first user point values usable by the first user and the second user, and a plurality of second user point values usable by the first user and the second user) as is taught by Bloy, and wherein the first total represented by the first user portion is a sum of the plurality of first user point values and the second total represented by the sum of the second user portion is a sum of the plurality of second user point values. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such linked loyalty accounts of point values because it would enable different users to share account rewards and benefits, as is evident from Bloy. It would have been advantageous to apply the user interface element taught by Keld (i.e. the bar chart, reference number 162 in FIG. 16 of Keld) to display the respective total point values of the first and second users, because this would enable a user to efficiently identify the relative contributions of each user, as is evident from Keld (see e.g. FIG. 16).
Görtler generally teaches using bubble treemaps to represent a plurality of items, wherein each item is represented by a circle having a size based on an amount associated with the item (see e.g. “Introduction” on pages 719-720, “Layout Algorithm” on page 723, and “S&P 500 Index” on page 725). Görtler discloses that the circles are enclosed by a contour (see e.g. FIG. 2(b) on page 720 and “Circular Arc Contours” on page 722). A contour enclosing two circles would thus comprise a first portion corresponding to a first item (i.e. a portion enclosing the circle representing the first item) and having a first size based on the amount associated with the first item (i.e. the amount represented by the size of first circle), a second portion corresponding to a second item (i.e. a portion enclosing the circle representing the second item) and having a second size based on the amount associated with the second item (i.e. the amount represented by the size of the second circle), and a connecting portion that connects the first portion and the second portion. Görtler particularly teaches that the connecting portion can be concave on opposing sides of the connecting portion (see e.g. FIG. 2(b)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Keld, Bloy and Görtler before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the user interface element taught by Keld and Bloy so as to instead use a bubble treemap like taught by Görtler to represent the respective total point values of the first and second users, which would comprise a shape that includes a first portion corresponding to a first item (i.e. the first user’s total point value), a second portion corresponding to a second item (i.e. the second user’s total point value), and a connecting portion that connects the first and second portions and that is concave on opposing sides of the connecting portion. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it can present information in a compact but readable representation, as is taught by Görtler (see e.g. “Introduction” on page 719).
Similar to Keld, Bloy and Görtler, Otjacques teaches using treemaps to represent a plurality of items, wherein each item can be represented by a circle (or ellipse) having a size based on an amount associated with the item (see e.g. the Abstract and section 1 “Introduction” on page 448, and “Gauges in Circular Treemaps” and section 4 “Storage ellimaps” on page 451). For example, analogous to the shape (i.e. bubble treemap) taught by Görtler, Otjacques suggests that such a treemap can comprise a number of portions (e.g. inner circles or ellipses) that each correspond to a different item (e.g. a budget category) and that have a size that corresponds to a numerical value associated with the item; Otjacques demonstrates that the treemap can also comprise a connecting portion (i.e. an outer circle or ellipse comprising the inner circles/ellipses) that connects (i.e. includes) the portions and that has a size that represents a joint total of the numerical values of the inner portions (see e.g. the Abstract and section 1 “Introduction” on page 448, “Gauges in Circular Treemaps” and section 4 “Storage ellimaps” on page 451, and Figure 6 on page 452). Otjacques suggests that the values associated with each inner portion and connecting portion can be displayed, either via a tooltip or as a label, in the associated portion (see “Main features” on pages 453-454 and Figure 13 on page 454).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Keld, Bloy, Görtler and Otjacques before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shape (i.e. bubble treemap) taught by Keld, Bloy and Görtler so as to further display the numerical values associated with each portion of the shape within that associated portion, as is taught by Otjacques. That is, it would have been obvious to include a numeric indication of the first total (i.e. the first user’s total point value) for display in or adjacent to the first user portion, a numeric indication of the second total (i.e. the second user’s total point value) for display in or adjacent to the second user portion, and an indication of the joint total that is a sum of the first total and the second total within the connecting portion that comprises the first user portion and the second user portion. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable the user to readily identify details of the data used to generate the shape (i.e. treemap), as is evident from Otjacques (see e.g. “Main features” on pages 453-454 and Figure 13 on page 454). Accordingly, Keld, Bloy, Görtler and Otjacques are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 37 for providing data for presentation of a user interface element.
As per claim 38, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to apply the user interface element taught by Keld so as to represent the respective user point values in linked loyalty accounts like taught by Bloy, wherein each user point value corresponds to a respective currency amount. Bloy particularly teaches applying one or more rules to determine each user point value, wherein the one or more rules comprise at least one of: a fixed ratio of the corresponding currency amount (e.g. a particular number of rewards points for every dollar spent), a tiered ratio based on interaction amount thresholds, or a rule determined by a type of user account (see e.g. paragraph 0039). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Keld, Bloy, Görtler and Otjacques is further considered to teach a method like that of claim 38.
As per claim 39, Keld further teaches receiving, by the system, a user selection of the time frame via an input to the user device (see e.g. FIG. 16: the spending category user interface includes various pull-down menus that understandably enable the user to select criteria by which the data is presented, one of which is a pull-down menu that enables a user to select a time frame. It is apparent that, in response to selecting a time frame via the pull-down menu, the selected time frame would be transmitted to the account interface system to determine the totals associated with the first and second users within the selected time frame, and update the display accordingly). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Keld, Bloy, Görtler and Otjacques is further considered to teach a method like that of claim 39.
As per claim 40, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to modify the user interface element taught by Keld and Bloy so as to instead use a bubble treemap like taught by Görtler to represent the respective total point values of the first and second users, which would comprise a shape that includes a first portion corresponding to a first item (i.e. the first user’s total point value), a second portion corresponding to a second item (i.e. the second user’s total point value), and a connecting portion (i.e. an outer contour) that connects the first and second portions and that is concave on opposing sides of the connecting portion. Görtler demonstrates that the connecting portion is integrally formed with its inner portions and defines a continuous visual boundary between the portions (see e.g. FIG. 2(b): Görtler demonstrates that a connecting portion, i.e. an outer contour encompassing inner portions, is integrally formed with its inner portions and defines a continuous boundary between the portions). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Keld, Bloy, Görtler and Otjacques is further considered to teach a method like that of claim 40.
As per claim 41, Otjacques suggests that the values associated with each inner portion and connecting portion of a treemap can be displayed, either via a tooltip or as a label, in the associated portion (see “Main features” on pages 453-454 and Figure 13 on page 454). As noted above, it would have been obvious to modify the shape (i.e. bubble treemap) taught by Keld, Bloy and Görtler so as to further display the numerical values associated with each portion of the shape within that associated portion, as is taught by Otjacques. That is, like noted above, it would have been obvious to include a numeric indication of the first total (i.e. the first user’s total point value) for display in the first user portion, a numeric indication of the second total (i.e. the second user’s total point value) for display in the second user portion, and an indication of the joint total that is a sum of the first total and the second total in the connecting portion that comprises the first user portion and the second user portion. Accordingly, the above-described combination of Keld, Bloy, Görtler and Otjacques is further considered to teach a method like that of claim 41.
As per claim 42, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to modify the user interface element taught by Keld and Bloy so as to instead use a bubble treemap like taught by Görtler to represent the respective total point values of the first and second users, which would comprise a shape that includes a first portion corresponding to a first item (i.e. the first user’s total point value), a second portion corresponding to a second item (i.e. the second user’s total point value), and a connecting portion that connects the first and second portions and that is concave on opposing sides of the connecting portion. Görtler suggests that the first size of the first user portion and the second size of the second user portion would be determined based on a tiered sizing rule that varies according to the comparative magnitudes of the first total and the second total (see e.g. “S&P 500 Index” on page 725 and FIG. 1, which demonstrates that the different portions, i.e. bubbles, of the treemap are sized based on the value associated therewith. The sizes of each bubble would thus vary according to the comparative magnitudes of the respective totals represented by each bubble). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Keld, Bloy, Görtler and Otjacques is further considered to teach a method like that of claim 42.
Claims 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9,286,637 to Keld et al. (“Keld”), over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0236789 to Caldwell (“Caldwell”), over the article entitled, “Bubble Treemaps for Uncertainty Visualization” by Görtler et al. (“Görtler”), and also over the article entitled, “Visualizing consumption in weighted hierarchies” by Otjacques et al. (“Otjacques”).
Regarding claim 30, Keld describes an account interface system that comprises account holder customization tools that allow account holders to a modify a user interface display of account related parameters by inputting selections into a computing system (see e.g. column 1, line 61 – column 2, line 14). Like claimed, Keld particularly teaches:
receiving user interface data from a remote system, the user interface data including: (i) a first total associated with a first user identifier and a second total associated with a second user identifier, (ii) a first size and a second size, and (iii) graphical information for rendering a user interface element (see e.g. column 13, lines 39-60; and FIG. 16: Keld discloses that the account interface system presents a spending category user interface that depicts spending by multiple parties in selectable categories. Keld demonstrates that the spending category user interface can comprise a bar chart, reference number 162 in FIG. 16, that depicts the total spending by a first party, “Meredith,” and by a second party, “Troy.” Each bar in the bar chart represents a respective user, and is sized in proportion to the total amount spent by that user – see e.g. FIG. 16. Keld further discloses that the account interface system can be connected over a network to one or more account holder systems, and suggests that the account interface system provides various user interfaces, including the spending category user interface noted herein, to the account holder systems for display – see e.g. column 3, lines 50-63; column 4, line 27 – column 5, line 15; and column 7, line 63 – column 8, line 17. The account holder system thus receives user interface data from a remote system, i.e. it receives data for presenting the spending category user interface from the account interface system, wherein the interface data would necessarily include a first total amount spent that is associated with a first user identifier, a second total amount spent that is associated with a second user identifier, a first size for the bar in the bar chart representing the first user, a second size for the bar in the bar chart representing the second user, and graphical information for rendering a user interface element, i.e. the bar chart.); and
presenting, on a display of the user device, the user interface element comprising (i) a first user portion corresponding to the first user and having the first size, (ii) a second user portion corresponding to the second user and having the second size, (iii) a connecting portion that connects the first user portion and the second user portion, (iv) a graphical identifier for the first user presented in or adjacent to the first user portion, and (v) a graphical identifier for the second user presented in or adjacent to the second user portion (see e.g. FIG. 16: the bar chart presented on the account holder system includes a first user portion, i.e. a first bar, corresponding to the first user “Meredith,” and includes a second user portion, i.e. a second bar, corresponding to the second user “Troy.” As noted above, the bars are each sized in proportion to the total amount spent by the respective user. Keld further demonstrates that the bar chart comprises a connecting portion, i.e. a line at the bottom of the chart, that connects the first bar and the second bar, and that each bar comprises a graphical identifier, i.e. a name, of the respective user – see e.g. FIG. 16.).
Keld discloses that such teachings can be implemented by one or more processors of a system that also comprises one or more memories communicatively coupled to the one or more processors (see e.g. column 4, lines 23-26; and column 5, lines 20-66). Such a system implementing the above-described teachings of Keld is considered a user device similar to that of claim 30. Keld however does not explicitly disclose that the first size and second size are determined based on a ratio or a proportion of the first total to the second total, as is required by claim 30. Moreover, Keld does not teach that: (i) the connecting portion of the user interface element is concave on opposing sides; (ii) an indication of a joint total that is a sum of the first total and the second total is presented within at least one of the first user portion, the second user portion or the connecting portion; (iii) a numeric indication of the first total is presented in or adjacent to the first user portion; and (iv) a numeric indication of the second total is presented in or adjacent to the second user portion, as is further required by claim 30.
Caldwell generally teaches representing financial data (e.g. a budget) via a set of bubbles (see e.g. paragraphs 0012 and 0029, and FIG. 3). Caldwell discloses that each of a plurality of the bubbles can represent a respective one of a plurality of categories of the financial data (e.g. housing, auto), and that an optional bubble can represent all the categories (e.g. a total budget) (see e.g. paragraphs 0029 and 0039, and FIGS. 3 and 13). Moreover, Caldwell discloses that each category is associated with a total amount (i.e. a budget amount) and that the bubbles are sized in proportion to this total amount (i.e. a budget amount) (see e.g. paragraphs 0029 and 0036). For example, if the total amount associated with a first category is one quarter of the amount associated with a second category, then the area occupied by the bubble representing the first category will be one quarter of the area occupied by the bubble representing the second category (see e.g. paragraphs 0029 and 0036). The presentation of such a display, to have appropriately-sized bubbles, would thus necessitate determining the relationship between the totals associated with each category; that is, it would necessitate determining a ratio of a first total associated with a first category to a second total associated with a second category, wherein a size of the bubble representing the first category and a size of the bubble representing the second category are based on the ratio of the first total to the second total.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Keld and Caldwell before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the user device taught by Keld so as to additionally or alternatively represent the respective first and second totals (i.e. total spending amounts) of the first and second users via a set of bubbles like taught by Caldwell, wherein a first bubble (i.e. a first user portion) corresponding to the first user would have a first size corresponding to the first total, a second bubble (i.e. a second user portion) would have a second size corresponding to the second total, and wherein the first size and the second size are determined based on a ratio or a proportion of the first total to the second total. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such bubbles because they can be more intuitive than a bar graph, as is suggested by Caldwell (see e.g. paragraphs 0007 and 0013).
Görtler generally teaches using bubble treemaps to represent a plurality of items, wherein like Caldwell, each item is represented by a circle having a size based on an amount associated with the item (see e.g. “Introduction” on pages 719-720, “Layout Algorithm” on page 723, and “S&P 500 Index” on page 725). Görtler discloses that the circles are enclosed by a contour (see e.g. FIG. 2(b) on page 720 and “Circular Arc Contours” on page 722). A contour enclosing two circles would thus comprise a first portion corresponding to a first item (i.e. a portion enclosing the circle representing the first item) and having a first size based on the amount associated with the first item (i.e. the amount represented by the size of first circle), a second portion corresponding to a second item (i.e. a portion enclosing the circle representing the second item) and having a second size based on the amount associated with the second item (i.e. the amount represented by the size of the second circle), and a connecting portion that connects the first portion and the second portion. Görtler particularly teaches that the connecting portion can be concave on opposing sides of the connecting portion (see e.g. FIG. 2(b)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Keld, Caldwell and Görtler before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the user interface element (i.e. the bubbles representing the first and second users’ spending amounts) taught by Keld and Caldwell so that the bubbles are enclosed by a contour like done with the bubble treemaps taught by Görtler. The resulting user interface element would include a first user portion (e.g. first bubble) corresponding to the first user’s spending total and having the first size, a second user portion (e.g. a second bubble) corresponding to the second user’s spending total and having the second size, and a connecting portion (i.e. a surrounding contour) that connects the first and second user portions and that is concave on opposing sides. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it can present information in a compact but readable representation, and indicate associations between related elements, as is taught by Görtler (see e.g. “Introduction” on page 719).
Similar to Keld, Caldwell and Görtler, Otjacques teaches using treemaps to represent a plurality of items, wherein each item can be represented by a circle (or ellipse) having a size based on an amount associated with the item (see e.g. the Abstract and section 1 “Introduction” on page 448, and “Gauges in Circular Treemaps” and section 4 “Storage ellimaps” on page 451). For example, analogous to the user interface element taught by Caldwell and Görtler, Otjacques suggests that such a treemap can comprise a number of portions (e.g. inner circles or ellipses) that each correspond to a different item (e.g. a budget category) and that have a size that corresponds to a numerical value associated with the item; Otjacques demonstrates that the treemap can also comprise a connecting portion (i.e. an outer circle or ellipse comprising the inner circles/ellipses) that connects (i.e. includes) the portions and that has a size that represents a joint total of the numerical values of the inner portions (see e.g. the Abstract and section 1 “Introduction” on page 448, “Gauges in Circular Treemaps” and section 4 “Storage ellimaps” on page 451, and Figure 6 on page 452). Otjacques suggests that the values associated with each inner portion and connecting portion can be displayed, either via a tooltip or as a label, in the associated portion (see “Main features” on pages 453-454 and Figure 13 on page 454).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Keld, Caldwell, Görtler and Otjacques before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the user interface element taught by Keld, Caldwell and Görtler so as to further display the numerical values associated with each portion of the shape within that associated portion, as is taught by Otjacques. That is, it would have been obvious to include a numeric indication of the first total (i.e. the first user’s total spending amount) for display in or adjacent to the first user portion, a numeric indication of the second total (i.e. the second user’s total spending amount) for display in or adjacent to the second user portion, and an indication of the sum of the first total and the second total in the connecting portion that comprises the first user portion and the second user portion. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable the user to readily identify details of the data used to generate the user interface element (i.e. treemap), as is evident from Otjacques (see e.g. “Main features” on pages 453-454 and Figure 13 on page 454). Accordingly, Keld, Caldwell, Görtler and Otjacques are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a user device like that of claim 30, which is for presenting a user interface element.
As per claim 31, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to modify the user device taught by Keld so as to additionally or alternatively represent the respective first and second totals (i.e. total spending amounts) of the first and second users via a set of respective bubbles like taught by Caldwell. Caldwell demonstrates that the bubbles have an arcuate shape (see e.g. FIG. 3). Görtler and Otjacques provide similar teachings (see e.g. FIGS 2(b) and 13, respectively). It thus follows that the user interface element would comprise an arcuate shape for each of the first user portion and the second user portion (i.e. for each bubble representing a respective user’s total spending amount). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Keld, Caldwell, Görtler and Otjacques is further considered to teach a user device like that of claim 31.
As per claim 32, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to modify the user interface element (i.e. the bubbles representing the first and second users’ spending amounts) taught by Keld and Caldwell so that the bubbles are enclosed by a contour like done with the bubble treemaps taught by Görtler. Görtler demonstrates that the connecting portion is integrally formed with its inner portions and defines a continuous visual boundary between the portions (see e.g. FIG. 2(b): Görtler demonstrates that a connecting portion, i.e. an outer contour encompassing inner portions, is integrally formed with its inner portions and defines a continuous boundary between the portions). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Keld, Caldwell, Görtler and Otjacques is further considered to teach a user device like that of claim 32.
As per claim 33, Keld teaches that the graphical identifier for each user comprises at least one of a visual representation of the user, an avatar, an icon or a username (see e.g. FIG. 16: Keld demonstrates that a user name is presented within each bar of the bar chart. It would have been apparent to similarly include the user name when displaying the respective total spending amounts of different users via Caldwell’s bubbles like described above.). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Keld, Caldwell, Görtler and Otjacques is further considered to teach a user device like that of claim 33.
As per claim 34, Otjacques suggests that the values associated with each inner portion and connecting portion of a treemap can be displayed, either via a tooltip or as a label, in the associated portion (see “Main features” on pages 453-454 and Figure 13 on page 454). As noted above, it would have been obvious to modify the user interface element (i.e. bubbles and enclosing contour) taught by Keld, Caldwell and Görtler so as to further display the numerical values associated with each portion of the shape within that associated portion, as is taught by Otjacques. That is, like noted above, it would have been obvious to include a numeric indication of the first total (i.e. the first user’s total spending amount) for display in the first user portion, a numeric indication of the second total (i.e. the second user’s total spending amount) for display in the second user portion, and an indication of the joint total of the first total and the second total in the connecting portion (i.e. outer contour) that comprises the first user portion and the second user portion. Accordingly, the above-described combination of Keld, Caldwell, Görtler and Otjacques is further considered to teach a user device like that of claim 34.
As per claim 35, Keld suggests that the user device is further configured to receive, via an input, a selection of a time frame and to transmit the selected time frame to a remote system for determining the first total and the second total (see e.g. FIG. 16: Keld demonstrates that the spending category user interface includes various pull-down menus that understandably enable the user to select criteria by which the data is presented, one of which is a pull-down menu that enables a user to select a time frame. It is apparent that, in response to selecting a time frame via the pull-down menu, the selected time frame would be transmitted to the account interface system to determine the total spending by the first and second users within the selected time frame, and update the display accordingly.). Consequently, the above-described combination of Keld, Caldwell, Görtler and Otjacques is further considered to teach a user device like that of claim 35.
As per claim 36, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to modify the user device taught by Keld so as to additionally or alternatively represent the respective first and second totals (i.e. total spending amounts) of the first and second users via respective bubbles like taught by Caldwell, wherein a first bubble (i.e. a first user portion) corresponding to the first user would have a first size corresponding to the first total, a second bubble (i.e. a second user portion) would have a second size corresponding to the second total. Caldwell suggests that the size of each bubble is determined based on a tiered sizing rule that varies according to the comparative magnitudes of the respective totals (see e.g. paragraphs 0029 and 0036; the sizes of each bubble varies according to the comparative magnitudes of the respective totals represented by each bubble). Consequently, the above-described combination of Keld, Caldwell, Görtler and Otjacques is further considered to teach a user device like that of claim 36.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s cancellation of claims 1 and 4-22, and addition of new claims 23-42. The Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. §1.111(C) to consider these references fully when responding to this action. In particular, the U.S. Patent to Nehring et al. cited therein describes methods and apparatuses for creating an output graphic that represents one or more elements of a hierarchical data structure, wherein each of the one or more elements includes a value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE T BASOM whose telephone number is (571)272-4044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:30 pm, 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, Matt Ell can be reached at (571)270-3264. 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.
/BTB/
3/7/2026
/MATTHEW ELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2141