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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references cited in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/15/2025 has been entered.
The Amendment filed 9/15/2025 has been entered. The Amendments to the claims overcome all rejections under 112(b) previously presented. Claims 1-18 and 20-21 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 depends from claim 19, which has been canceled. For clarity of the record, the Examiner has interpreted claim 20 as if it depends from claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "with the one or more metrics selected via the user interface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
To overcome this rejection, the Examiner recommends removing “the” from the limitation such that claim 20 recites “with
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 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,633,076), hereinafter Morton, in view of Chasman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0225525), hereinafter Chasman, Willcock et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0081868), hereinafter Willcock, and Antipa (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0185994).
Regarding claim 1, Morton teaches A system for providing data analysis and processing (Col. 1, lines 21-44, Morton discloses a system for blending data from multiple data sources into a single data visualization in a user interface to allow for data analysis.)
at least one non-transitory storage device (Fig. 2, memory 214); and
at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device (Fig. 2, CPU 202), wherein the at least one processing device is configured to:
receive a plurality of data (Col. 13, lines 47-56, data sets are retrieved from multiple data sources by querying the data sources and receiving the data set consisting of the specified fields.);
cause a rendering of a user interface that presents one or more (Fig. 8, dropdown lists for selecting data sources 804A and 804B; Col. 12, lines 14-19, the client device builds a visual specification to allow the user to select data sources);
receive one or more user selections of the one or more (Col. 6, lines 28-32 and 35-51, data visualization application 104 enables the user to input the selected data sources and fields from the sources through the user interface 222, user interface module 220 receives the user input);
generate the report based on one or more of the plurality of data (Col. 14, lines 27-30 and 39-46, the data visualization application combines the data from the selected sources into a final data set), […]; and
cause a rendering relating to the report based on the generated report to the user interface (Col 14, lines 44-46, the data visualization application displays a data visualization on the user interface which was created with the data from the final data set), […].
Morton fails to expressly teach the system using graphical user interface position mapping identification, receiving the data in data packets, rendering of selectable icons, nor wherein the report comprises one or more cells of data; and […] wherein the rendering comprises a position mapping identifier for each cell of the one or more cells of data from the plurality of data packets within the rendering, and wherein each the-position mapping identifier corresponds to a formatting of each cell and the formatting is based on the size and dimension of each cell of the one or more cells and in an instance where the data in the plurality of data packets or data in the one or more cells of the report changes, the one or more cells remain in the same location in the rendering with the same formatting of each cell based on the same size and dimension.
However, Chasman discloses a system (Figs. 23 and 24, systems 2312 and 2316) for displaying data using graphical user interface position mapping identification ([0053] – [0055], a report component, for example a bar chart, may be selected and positioned in the canvas editor on the user interface. A data source icon may then be dragged to the component to populate the component with the desired data.).
Morton and Chasman are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they disclose systems for analyzing and presenting data from multiple data sources involving a user interface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Morton to incorporate the teachings of Chasman and use position mapping identification in the user interface (Chasman, [0053] – [0055]). Doing so would allow the user to instantly merge the report component and the data source to see how the finished dashboard design will look, and to directly manipulate the visualization of the data sources in a graphical manner (Chasman, [0055]).
Chasman discloses the system (Figs. 23 and 24, user systems 2312 and 2316) for displaying data may communicate within other devices in the system and with data sources using a network that packages data in data packets ([0083], user systems 2312 might communicate with system 2316 via a TCP/IP network).
Morton and Chasman are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they disclose systems for analyzing and presenting data from multiple data sources involving a user interface. Chasman states that the most common type of communication network is a TCP/IP network, such as the Internet (Chasman, [0082]). TCP/IP are common protocols for transmitting data across networks in the form of data packets, consisting of metadata, such as addressing information, in a header and the actual data being transmitted. Therefore, if a system is using the Internet as a communication network to send and receive data, it is implied that the data is packaged into data packets for transmission. Morton discloses the client device may connect to other databases over communication networks such as the Internet (Morton, Col. 5, lines 34-36). Since Morton states the network over which the client device retrieves data from databases could be the Internet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention that the system of Morton could be receiving data from the data sources in the form of data packets and that the data in the generated report and the rendering relating to the report would comprise data from the plurality of data packets.
Chasman also discloses the system (Fig. 23, system 2316) for displaying data includes a non-transitory storage medium (Fig. 23, storage 2322 and 2324) and processor (Fig. 23, processor system) configured to receive data from the data sources ([0055]), cause a rendering of a user interface that presents selectable icons for selecting data (Fig. 2, step 202, [0050], a dashboard editor is displayed on the user interface including a list of data sources and a list of components, which may be represented by icons), receive user selection of the selectable icons to indicate which data sources should be used (Fig. 2, step 206, [0054], the icons may be clicked and dragged to select a data source), generate a report based on the data from the selected data sources (Fig. 2, step 208, [0055], the user can select components to be included in the report), and cause a rendering related to the report on the user interface (Fig. 2, step 208, [0055], components are rendered using the data from the selected sources).
Thus, Morton and Chasman each disclose a system in which a user can select data sources to be used for creating a data visualization to be used for data analysis through a user interface. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the selectable icons of Chasman could have been substituted for the selectable drop-down lists of Morton because both the icons and drop-down lists serve the purpose of allowing the user to select the data sources from which data should be retrieved and included in the generated report. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of carrying out the substitution. Finally, the substitution yields the predictable result of allowing the user to input selected data sources to the interface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the selectable icons of Chasman for the selectable drop-down lists of Morton according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing an input to the user allowing them to select data sources.
The combination of Morton in view of Chasman fails to expressly teach wherein the report comprises one or more cells of data; and […] wherein the rendering comprises a position mapping identifier for each cell of the one or more cells of data from the plurality of data packets within the rendering, and wherein each the-position mapping identifier corresponds to a formatting of each cell and the formatting is based on the size and dimension of each cell of the one or more cells and in an instance where the data in the plurality of data packets or data in the one or more cells of the report changes, the one or more cells remain in the same location in the rendering with the same formatting of each cell based on the same size and dimension.
However, Willcock teaches wherein the report comprises one or more cells of data ([0020] – “a dynamic templating solution for generating richly formatted output (e.g., reports in HTML, also referred to as HyperText Markup Language).”; [0036] – “a rendering process of the system retrieves the object that defines the template, extracts template definition data from the object, and uses the template definition data to create document components (e.g., HTML elements). […] the rendering process joins the document components to produce a string of text that represents a base template.”; [0039] – “the rendering process inserts tokens to low level document components (e.g., labels, tables, titles, etc.) to indicate that data will be inserted into the template at positions of the tokens at a later stage”; [0043] – “the rendering process replaces singular tokens in the base template with singular data. […] Each token represents a data item to be merged into the template to produce a final report document.”; [0045] – “the rendering process generates a final rendered report document based on a markup language ( e.g., HTML).” The document components (e.g., HTML elements) in the generated final report document are “one or more cells” of data.); and cause a rendering relating to the report based on the generated report to the user interface ([0045] – “the rendering process generates a final rendered report document based on a markup language (e.g., HTML). In step 216, the platform sends out the final rendered report document to be displayed on a screen of a user device.”), wherein the rendering comprises […] each cell of the one or more cells of data from the plurality of data packets within the rendering ([0039] and [0043]-[0045] – each document component with a token (cell) has data inserted to generate the final report, the entire final report is rendered and displayed.), […] and the formatting is based on the size and dimension of each cell of the one or more cells ([0036] – “a rendering process of the system retrieves the object that defines the template, extracts template definition data from the object, and uses the template definition data to create document components (e.g., HTML elements). In other words, using the objects, the dynamic template can have an extra layer of metadata that defines the shape of the data to be rendered in the template.”; [0045] – “The final rendered report document is a formatted output. A formatted output is a document object that includes text, tabulated data and/or graphical elements. An example of a formatted output is a web page (in HTML) or a PDF (portable document format) file. The formatted output provides a fine control of layout (e.g., positions and sizes of elements, formats of multiple pages, repeating elements, etc.), fonts and ornamentation of text elements, and positions and sizes of logos and images, etc.”; [0054] – “the data layout (e.g., positioning, font, column order, styling, totals, etc.)”. Layout and format (“formatting”) of the final rendered report document includes the element position, element sizes, and column order of the data (which is inserted into the elements).) and in an instance where the data in the plurality of data packets or data in the one or more cells of the report changes, the one or more cells remain in the same location in the rendering with the same formatting of each cell based on the same size and dimension ([0042] – “a user may instruct to generate a second final report document, which contains different document data but contains the same document layout and format as the first final report document. In that case, the base template has already been rendered and cached in the platform. The system can just use the base template again for rendering the second final report document.”; [0045] – “layout (e.g., positions and sizes of elements, formats of multiple pages, repeating elements, etc.)”; [0054] – “the data layout (e.g., positioning, font, column order, styling, totals, etc.)”).
Willcock is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of mapping data of a report to particular points in a rendering to allow for consistent formatting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Morton in view of Chasman to incorporate the teachings of Willcock such that the generated report comprises cells of data where the cells of the generated report remain in the same location in the rendering relating to the report with the same formatting in an instance the data in the cells of the report changes. Using an already rendered and cached base template with a defined layout and formatting of elements that are populated with different data eliminates the need to rebuild the same template from scratch and reduces processing time required for rendering (Willcock: [0019]-[0020] and [0042]).
The combination of Morton in view of Chasman and Willcock fails to expressly teach a position mapping identifier for each cell; and wherein each position mapping identifier corresponds to a formatting of each cell.
However, Antipa teaches a rendering comprises a position mapping identifier for each cell and wherein each position mapping identifier corresponds to a formatting of each cell and the formatting is based on the size and dimension of each cell of the one or more cells ([0004] – “the web browser may render an HTML document that contains HTML objects”; [0066] – “The HTML object may have a certain size (e.g., height and width attributes) and may include a number of elements, each of which may have content and attributes. […] The content of each element may be an image or a text. The attributes of each of element may include, for example, an "id" attribute configured to provide a document-wide unique identifier for the element, a "class" attribute configured to classify the element, a "style" attribute configured to assign presentational properties to the element, and other attributes. In certain implementations, the "id," "class," and/or "style" attribute may select a style for an element from a style sheet, such as from cascading style sheets (CSS).” The “id” attribute of each HTML element may select (“correspond to”) a style (“formatting”). [0072] – “a styling attribute (e.g., background color, font color, font size, location within document 112, and other attributes).”; [0076] – example code with style attributes which may specify a number of pixels (size) in both width and height (dimension) of an element.).
Antipa is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of rendering a graphical user interface comprising identifiers corresponding to cells of data within the rendering. Willcock teaches the document components (“cells”) making up the base template of the report document and the final report document may be HTML elements (Willcock: [0036] and [0045]), where the document components have consistent layout and formatting even when the data changes (Willcock: [0042]), and the layout and formatting may include position, sizes, styling, column order, etc. (Willcock: [0045] and [0053]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Morton in view of Chasman and Willcock such that the rendering comprises an HTML “id” attribute (“position mapping identifier”) for each element (“cell of data”), and each “id” attribute corresponds to a styling/formatting of the cell as taught by Antipa. Doing so enables document-wide unique identification of each element and can be used to select styles for specific HTML elements (Antipa: [0066]). In this manner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Morton, Chasman, Willcock and Antipa to achieve the invention as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Morton in view of Chasman, Willcock, and Antipa teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to determine one or more metrics to be included in the report based on the plurality of data packets from the selected data sources of the plurality of data sources (Morton: Col. 2, lines 44-54, the common fields in the selected data sources are linked automatically or by prompting the user to manually link them in the user interface; Col. 14, lines 7-11, the linking fields may be included in the queries of the data sources to obtain data sets included in the combined final data set).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Morton in view of Chasman, Willcock, and Antipa teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to determine one or more metrics to be included in the report based on one or more common metrics in the plurality of data packets from the selected data sources of the plurality of data sources (Morton: Col. 2, lines 44-54, the common fields in the selected data sources are linked automatically or by prompting the user to manually link them in the user interface; Col. 14, lines 7-11, the linking fields – which are the common fields across the selected data sets – may be included in the queries of the data sources to obtain data sets included in the combined final data set).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Morton in view of Chasman, Willcock, and Antipa teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to: cause a rendering of one or more metrics to be used in the report (Morton: Fig. 8, data source field lists 806A and 806B; Col. 12, lines 14-19, the client device builds a visual specification to allow the user to select data fields to filter the data from the selected data sources); and receive a metric selection from the user interface, wherein the metric selection indicates the metrics to be used in the report (Morton: Col. 6, lines 28-32 and 35-51, data visualization application 104 enables the user to input the selected data sources and data fields from the sources through the user interface 222, user interface module 220 receives the user input).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Morton in view of Chasman, Willcock, and Antipa teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the report comprises at least one of a numerical or visual representation of the plurality of data packets from the selected data sources of the plurality of data sources (Morton: Col. 10, line 63 – Col. 11, line 3, visual specification 602 is created from selections by the user specifying what the final data set is and how the data set will be displayed; Col. 14, lines 44-46, the data visualization application displays a data visualization on the user interface created with the data from the final data set. In the exemplary embodiment of Fig. 4, the user could specify the data visualization is a bar chart.).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Morton in view of Chasman, Willcock, and Antipa teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to receive one or more metrics to be included in the report from the user interface (Morton: Col. 6, lines 28-32 and 35-51, data visualization application 104 enables the user to input the selected data sources and data fields from the sources through the user interface 222, user interface module 220 receives the user input).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Morton in view of Chasman, Willcock, and Antipa teaches the system of Claim 6, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to determine data of the plurality of data packets from the selected data sources of the plurality of data sources that is associated with the one or more metrics selected via the user interface (Morton: Col. 6, lines 39-51 – data visualization application 104 enables the user to input the selected data sources and data fields from the sources through the user interface 222 and the data visualization application identifies the needed data sources and fields from each data source; Col. 13, lines 47-56, the data visualization application generates a query including the selected fields from the visual specification; Col 14, lines 19-30, the client device may have to filter the data from the first data source to gather the data corresponding to the selected fields to be used in the combined data set; Col. 14, lines 39-46, the data from the data sources must be aggregated to the fields in the combined set according to the user-specified fields).
Claim 8 is directed a computer program product (Morton: Col. 1, lines 21-44, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing programs for blending data from multiple data sources into a single data visualization in a user interface to allow for data analysis) for providing data analysis and processing using graphical user interface position mapping identification, the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-readable program code portions embodied therein (Morton: Fig. 2, memory 214; Col. 6, lines 11-17), the computer-readable program code portions comprising: executable portions configured to perform the same functions as the system of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected as being unpatentable over Morton in view of Chasman, Willcock, and Antipa for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1 above.
Claims 9-14 recite substantially the same limitations applied to the computer program product of claim 8 as those recited in claims 2-7. Accordingly, claims 9-14 are rejected as being unpatentable over Morton in view of Chasman, Willcock, and Antipa for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 2-7 above.
Claim 15 is directed to a computer-implemented method (Morton: Col. 1, lines 21-44, Morton discloses a method for blending data from multiple data sources into a single data visualization in a user interface to allow for data analysis.) for providing data analysis and processing using graphical user interface position mapping identification, the method comprising: the functions performed by the system of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected as being unpatentable over Morton in view of Chasman, Willcock, and Antipa for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1 above.
Claims 16-18 and 20 recite substantially the same limitations applied to the computer-implemented method of claim 15 as those recited in claims 2-4 and 7. Accordingly, claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected as being unpatentable over Morton in view of Chasman, Willcock, and Antipa for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 2-4 and 7 above.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton in view of Chasman, Willcock and Antipa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Denninghoff (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0164352).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Morton in view of Chasman, Willcock, and Antipa teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to expressly teach wherein the position mapping identifier is independent of the contents of the cell associated with location of the data.
However, Denninghoff teaches wherein the position mapping identifier is independent of the contents of the cell associated with location of the data ([0088] – “Positions have no fundamental relationship with content or its intended meaning. Original content could be removed and semantically unrelated content inserted to replace it without changing the markup at all; pre-existing position-based fragment identifiers would then identify the new unrelated content. This is not different from standard fragment identifiers that name the `id` attribute of an HTML element pre-inserted for the purpose of identifying a position in the markup.”).
Denninghoff is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor in using position mapping identifiers to identify locations of data in a rendering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the HTML id attribute (“position mapping identifier”) corresponding to a formatting of each HTML element (“cell”) taught by Antipa for the HTML elements in the rendered base template and final rendered report document taught by Willcock would be independent of the contents of the elements as evidenced by Denninghoff. The HTML “id” attribute of HTML elements is known in the art to identify a position within an HTML document and does not have a fundamental relationship with the content of the element as evidenced by Denninghoff (Denninghoff: [0088]). Further, using an already rendered and cached base template of the report having a defined layout (including position) and formatting of the HTML elements of the report, where the base template is independent of the content of the data which populates the template, eliminates the need to rebuild the same template from scratch and reduces processing time required for rendering (Willcock: [0019]-[0020] and [0042]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, Applicant’s argues the reference Srivastava et al. (US 11,086,894) fails to teach the claimed position mapping identifier.
However, in the rejection of claim 1 in the present Office Action, the Examiner does not rely on Srivastava for any claim limitation, and instead relies upon new reference, Antipa (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0185994) to teach the claimed position mapping identifier, and the combination of Willcock et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0081868) in view of Antipa to teach the argued limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carlsson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,959,427) teaches a website template including empty or default HTML blocks that pre-define locations where HTML content can move to and from, where each of the HTML content blocks retain independent HTML IDs and independent CSS styling template properties including the location of the content blocks in the template (see Col. 4, line 50 – Col. 5, line 12).
Arzuffi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0106691) teaches using a layout markup document including placeholder layout elements which have a layout identifier corresponding to a position in the page/rendering, and a content markup document which have content elements with content identifiers which are matched with the layout identifiers to generate a web page (see Abstract, [0031], FIG. 2).
Faramarzi (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0182438) teaches metadata of an HTML element may comprise an ID attribute and dimensional attributes such as “HEIGHT”, “WIDTH”, “SIZE” (see [0051]).
Uzgin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0043231) teaches cascading style sheets allow content of an electronic document to be separated from its presentation (see [0046]).
Sorge et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,691,281) teaches the ID attribute in an HTML document enables finding data to be replaced and facilitates republishing of an HTML document with different data (see Col. 3, line 63-Col. 4, lines 9 and Col. 6, lines 22-37).
HTML id attribute (NPL Document U on attached PTO-892) teaches the HTML id attribute is used to specify a unique id for an HTML element in an HTML document and is used to point to a specific style declaration in a style sheet (see page 1).
CSS - Dimension (NPL Document V on attached PTO-892) teaches CSS properties, height, and width, are used to control the dimensions of every HTML element (see page 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER MARIE GUTMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1572. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Kevin Young can be reached at 571-270-3180. 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.
/JENNIFER MARIE GUTMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2194 /KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194