DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-40 are presented for examination. Claims 21 and 31 stand currently amended.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Finality of Office Action
The following is a brief summary description of new ground(s) of rejection (if any) and the reason why those new ground(s) are made necessary by this amendment:
No new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 21 July 2026 have been fully considered and Examiner’s response is as follows:
Applicant remarks page 10 argues:
Thus, the claims distinctly recite a "drawing canvas" and a "layout," and that both of these are of "an interactive user interface" that is "generated" "on a display." The claims require that the "drawing canvas comprises a visual representation of an installation" with "one or more shapes" that each have "a respective size and relative position." The claims also require that the "layout comprises at least the image of the first stone slab overlaid by the one or more shapes" that are also visually represented on the drawing canvas. Then the claims further require "automatically updating" the shape(s) of the "drawing canvas" or the "layout" in response to input from a user "changing a size or relative position" of the shape on the other. It is respectfully submitted that Czmyrid fails to disclose the limitations of the independent claims.
This argument is unpersuasive.
Czmyrid column 7 line 16 disclose “Client device 60 includes a user interface display 61.” A user interface display is clearly a user interface. The interface has a layout Czmyrid column 8 lines 54-56 disclose “a menu 286 including one or more options for a user to modify 3D scene 285.” A menu to modify the scene clearly shows the display is interactive.
Czmyrid column 7 lines 26-29 disclose “User interface display 61 may deliver visual output to a user related to the physical inventory of stone slabs 50, such as a scene depicting a stone slab in an installation environment.” A scene depicting a stone slab in an installation environment corresponds to a visual representation of an installation, which defines the drawing canvas.
Regarding the layout, Czmyrid column 8 lines 6-8 disclose “The slab image portions may be combined with the environment image at the target areas to generate a scene depicting the slab image portions in the installation environment.” Czmyrid column 8 lines 54-56 disclose “a menu 286 including one or more options for a user to modify 3D scene 285.”
Czmyrid column 27 line 57 column 28 line 3 discloses:
Alternatively or additionally, target areas 1171a, 1171b, 1171c, 1171d of the environment image 1170 may be manually identified via manual user input at client device 60 (e.g. while client device displays environment image 1170), such as by manually selecting an area of environment image 1170, drawing a box around an area, or otherwise manually designating an area of environment image 1170 as a target area. In an exemplary embodiment, system 10 identifies proposed target areas 1171a, 1171b, 1171c, 1171d displays the proposed target areas 1171a, 1171b, 1171c, 1171d to a user via a client device (e.g. by designating an area on broken lines, ghosting, etc.), and receives input from a user confirming or canceling selection of one or more of target areas 1171a, 1171b, 1171c, 1171d.
The broken line or ghosting representation of the proposed target areas corresponds with an overlay of one or more shapes of the layout.
Applicant remarks page 11 further argues:
Czmyrid does not describe or disclose that the menu includes, as required by the instant claims, "an image of the first stone slab overlaid by the one or more shapes."
This argument is unpersuasive.
As discussed immediately above, Czmyrid column 27 line 28 to column 28 line 3 teaches a broken line or ghosting representation of the proposed target areas corresponds with an overlay of one or more shapes of the layout.
Applicant remarks page 11 further argues:
The user display describing a display of the installation environment, to the extent it may disclose a drawing canvas (which is not conceded), does not disclose the recited "interactive graphical user interface" of both "a drawing canvas" and "a layout."
This argument is unpersuasive.
The cited teachings of Czmyrid are all from one reference and each relate to the user/client interface. Furthermore, Czmyrid column 28 lines 18-25 and figures 11-12 shows the “slab image portions … can be visualized in the target areas.” The slab image portion shapes clearly correspond with the visualized target area of the 3D installation environment (1170). The shapes being displayed in 3D in the drawing canvas and in 2D in at least one layout does not make the respective slab portion a separate shape in each respective user interface display taught by Czmyrid. Accordingly, Examiner is unpersuaded that the cited teachings of Czmyrid either fail to teach a unified interactive graphical user interface, nor fail to teach a consistent shape within the respective drawing canvas and layout.
Applicant remarks restate arguments already presented above regarding the user interface, drawing canvas, layout, and shapes. See Examiner’s respective response above.
Applicant remarks page 12 further argues:
Additionally, Czmyrid fails to disclose the recited automatic updating between the drawing canvas and the layout in response to an input from a user changing a shape on one automatically updating the shape on the other. … It is respectfully submitted that Czmyrid does not only fail to disclose an interactive user interface with both a drawing canvas and a layout, but also fails to disclose how a user input from one of these results in the recited automatic update to the other.
This argument is unpersuasive.
Czmyrid column 26 line 31-33 discloses “a user may input by dragging a simulated stone slab image into a desired positioning on a target area.” User input is an input received from a user. Dragging the stone slab into a desired position is the user changing a relative position in the layout. This is an update of relative position of the shapes on the drawing canvas.
Czmyrid column 27 lines 11-15 discloses “The aesthetic characteristics of the specific stone slab, such as the positioning of veins or other visual appearances (e.g. that may vary slightly even between slabs having the same style), are accurately depicted in the installation environment, and may be adjusted by the user.” An accurate depiction which was adjusted by a user corresponds to an automatically updated depiction to remain accurate.
Specification
The abstract has been appropriately corrected. Accordingly, Examiner's objection(s) to the specification is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 31 have been appropriately corrected. Accordingly, Examiner's objection(s) to the claim(s) are withdrawn.
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 27 and 37 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 27 and 37 recites “generating a split screen of four parts, wherein a first part includes the drawing canvas and a second part includes the layout.” Claims 27 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the third and fourth part.
If the third and fourth part are not essential, then Applicant might consider amending claim 27 and 37 to recite “generating a split screen of at least two parts, wherein a first part includes the drawing canvas and a second part includes the layout.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-26, 28-36, and 38-40
Claims 21-26, 28-36, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US patent 10,467,352 B2 Czmyrid, et al. [herein “Czmyrid”].
Claim 21 recites “21. A method comprising: receiving a plurality of image files, each of the plurality of image files comprising an image of one of a plurality of stone slabs, the plurality of image files including a first image file comprising an image of a first stone slab.” Czmyrid column 6 lines 56-57 disclose “slab image files 20 include a digital image 21 of an associated stone slab.” The slab image files correspond with a plurality of image files. The particular associated stone slab corresponds with a first image file of a first stone slab.
Claim 21 further recites “generating, on a display, an interactive graphical user interface comprising a drawing canvas and a layout; wherein the drawing canvas comprises a visual representation of an installation.” Czmyrid column 7 line 16 disclose “Client device 60 includes a user interface display 61.” Czmyrid column 7 lines 26-29 disclose “User interface display 61 may deliver visual output to a user related to the physical inventory of stone slabs 50, such as a scene depicting a stone slab in an installation environment.” A scene depicting a stone slab in an installation environment corresponds to a visual representation of an installation, which defines the drawing canvas.
Claim 21 further recites “wherein the visual representation includes one or more shapes, and wherein each shape of the one or more shapes has a respective size and relative position.” Czmyrid column 6 lines 56-62 disclose:
slab image files 20 include a digital image 21 of an associated stone slab, and/or information related to the stone slab stored as image metadata 25, such as a unique identifier, manufacturing location and/or date/time, dimensional relationship(s), thickness, gloss readings, color characteristics, purchaser information, processing conditions, genealogy, etc.
The dimensional relationship(s) of the stone slab correspond to a shape with a respective size.
Czmyrid column 8 lines 1-6 disclose:
Server system 11 and/or client device 60 may include software programmed to identify geometry of a target area of the slab installation environment where portions of the slab may be installed, and subsequently divide the slab image into slab image portions fitted to the target area.
Fitting to a geometry of a target area corresponds with determining a respective shape and relative position.
Claim 21 further recites “wherein the layout comprises at least the image of the first stone slab overlaid by the one or more shapes.” Czmyrid column 8 lines 6-8 disclose “The slab image portions may be combined with the environment image at the target areas to generate a scene depicting the slab image portions in the installation environment.” Czmyrid column 8 lines 54-56 disclose “a menu 286 including one or more options for a user to modify 3D scene 285.”
Czmyrid column 27 line 57 column 28 line 3 discloses:
Alternatively or additionally, target areas 1171a, 1171b, 1171c, 1171d of the environment image 1170 may be manually identified via manual user input at client device 60 (e.g. while client device displays environment image 1170), such as by manually selecting an area of environment image 1170, drawing a box around an area, or otherwise manually designating an area of environment image 1170 as a target area. In an exemplary embodiment, system 10 identifies proposed target areas 1171a, 1171b, 1171c, 1171d displays the proposed target areas 1171a, 1171b, 1171c, 1171d to a user via a client device (e.g. by designating an area on broken lines, ghosting, etc.), and receives input from a user confirming or canceling selection of one or more of target areas 1171a, 1171b, 1171c, 1171d.
The broken line or ghosting representation of the proposed target areas corresponds with an overlay of one or more shapes of the layout.
Claim 21 further recites “receiving, from a user device, a first user input associated with a first shape of the one or more shapes; automatically updating, in response to receiving an input from a user changing a size or relative position of the first shape in either drawing canvas or the layout, the size or relative position of the first shape in the other of the drawing canvas or layout.” From the above list of alternatives the Examiner is selecting “relative position.”
Czmyrid column 26 line 31-33 discloses “a user may input by dragging a simulated stone slab image into a desired positioning on a target area.” User input is an input received from a user. Dragging the stone slab into a desired position is the user changing a relative position in the layout. This is an update of relative position of the shapes on the drawing canvas.
Czmyrid column 27 lines 11-15 discloses “The aesthetic characteristics of the specific stone slab, such as the positioning of veins or other visual appearances (e.g. that may vary slightly even between slabs having the same style), are accurately depicted in the installation environment, and may be adjusted by the user.” An accurate depiction which was adjusted by a user corresponds to an automatically updated depiction to remain accurate in the user interface.
Claim 22 further recites “22. The method of claim 21, wherein the one or more shapes generated in the layout each indicate a piece of the first stone slab from where each of the shapes is to be cut.” Czmyrid column 8 lines 1-18 disclose:
Server system 11 and/or client device 60 may include software programmed to identify geometry of a target area of the slab installation environment where portions of the slab may be installed, and subsequently divide the slab image into slab image portions fitted to the target area. …. system 10 can provide accurate and efficient visualizations of a stone slab in an installation environment that facilitates purchasing decisions, cost quoting, and/or subsequent fabrication operations of the physical stone slab (e.g. mapping and cutting the physical stone slab for installation).
The divided and fitted portions of the target area correspond with the respective mapping for cutting which corresponds with a shape in the layout indicating where the stone slab is to be cut.
Claim 23 further recites “23. The method of claim 21 further comprising: receiving, prior to generating the interactive graphical user interface, a second user input selecting the first stone slab from a visual representation of two or more of the plurality of stone slabs, including a visual representation of the first stone slab.” Czmyrid column 10 lines 19-24 disclose:
the comparison view may simultaneously display stone slabs having the same style that correspond to different physical stone slabs in a physical inventory of stone slabs. The comparison view may thus facilitate selection of a specific physical stone slab, in addition to selection of a stone slab style.
Comparing different physical stone slabs corresponds to two or more stone slabs. The comparison view is a visual representation. Selections of a specific physical stone slab corresponds with received user inputs.
Claim 24 further recites “24. The method of claim 21 further comprising: generating, after having received the first image file, a plurality of tiling image files based on the first image file, wherein the plurality of tiling image files each comprise different portions of the image of the first stone slab of the first image file.” Czmyrid column 28 lines 18-25 disclose:
System 10 includes software programmed to divide the slab image 1221 into slab image portions 1221a, 1221b, 1221c having dimensions that correspond to the dimensions of target areas 1171a, 1171b, 1171c (FIG. 11). In this way, slab image 1221 can be divided into image portions that can be visualized in the target areas while maintaining dimensional accuracy and without repeating or tiling portions of slab image 1221.
The portions which can be visualized without repeating corresponds to a generated tiling image files corresponding to different portions of the image. The images being without repeating or tiling is a teaching that the images are different portions as claimed.
Czmyrid is not teaching away from the claimed “tiling of image files” as here tiling has more than one meaning. A claimed, the “tiling of image files each comprise different portions” means covering with the respective image files, i.e. placing next to each other. Czmyrid’s teaching of “without repeating or tiling” is teaching away from repeating the same portions of image and is using the term “tiling” in the sense of a tiled rendering. Notably both Czmyrid and the claim language state “comprise different portions” and “without repeating” respectively thus clarifying the similarity of these respective teachings.
Claim 24 further recites “and displaying, on a plurality of adjacent displays, the tiling image files, wherein each of the plurality of adjacent displays is displaying a different tiling image file of the plurality of tiling image files to generate a full size image of the first stone slab of the first image file.” Czmyrid column 28 lines 18-25 disclose:
System 10 includes software programmed to divide the slab image 1221 into slab image portions 1221a, 1221b, 1221c having dimensions that correspond to the dimensions of target areas 1171a, 1171b, 1171c (FIG. 11). In this way, slab image 1221 can be divided into image portions that can be visualized in the target areas while maintaining dimensional accuracy and without repeating or tiling portions of slab image 1221.
The slab image being divided into portions to create the image portions corresponds with the image portions being a full-size whole of the slab image when those portions are combined. The visualization of respective image portions is a displaying of the tiling image files with a plurality of adjacent displays.
Claim 25 further recites “25. The method of claim 21 further comprising: generating, on the display, a 3D visual representation of the installation based on the drawing canvas and the layout.” Czmyrid column 20 lines 33-37 disclose “generating a visualization of a stone slab. Operation 812 may include generating a scene (e.g. a 2D scene, 3D scene, or other virtual reality environment) depicting at least a portion of a major surface of a stone slab associated with the slab image file in a slab installation environment.” Generation of a 3D scene corresponds with generating a 3D visual representation of the slab installation.
Claim 26 further recites “26. The method of claim 21 further comprising: generating at least one file of information for cutting the first stone slab displayed in the drawing canvas.” Czmyrid column 27 lines 24-27 disclose “The slab image portions may thus have dimensions and edges that accurately reflect dimensions and edges that could result from physically cutting and finishing the associated physical stone slab.” The slab image portions are at least one file of information. The slab image portions reflecting dimensions that could result from physically cutting the stone slab corresponds with a cutting of the stone slab being displayed.
Claim 28 further recites “28. The method of claim 21, wherein the plurality of image files are associated with a plurality of stone slabs in inventory.” Czmyrid column 6 lines 17-20 disclose “Production database 30 stores information related to system 10, including slab image files 20 associated with physical stone slabs 50a, 50b, 50c in the physical inventory of stone slabs 50.”
Claim 29 further recites “29. The method of claim 28, wherein the plurality of image files does not include image files for stone slabs not in inventory.” Czmyrid column 12 lines 59-63 discloses “A stone slab depicted in the 3D scene that is associated with a physical stone slab available in inventory reduces intermediate steps of confirming availability of a stone slab (e.g. by physically manipulating the inventory of stone slabs).” Depicting stone slabs available in inventor to avoid confirming availability of the stone slab corresponds to not including image files for stone slabs not in inventory.
Claim 30 further recites “30. The method of claim 21 further comprising: receiving, from a user device, a selection of an edge finishing to apply to a first edge of the first shape; automatically updating, in response to receiving an input from a user selecting the edge finishing, both the drawing canvas and the layout to display the edge finishing on the first edge.” Czmyrid column 25 lines 3-5 disclose “a user may select a desired slab dimension, color characteristics, movement, edge profile, gloss, and/or other characteristics.” Czmyrid column 24 lines 25-26 disclose “Operation 908 may include generating visible edges of the slab(s) installed in the installation environment.” The edge profile corresponds with an edge finishing to apply to an edge.
Claim 31 recites “31. A computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable program code instructions that, when executed by a computing apparatus.” Czmyrid column 5 lines 60-62 disclose “System 10 includes a server system 11, production database 30, and client device 60 that are in communication with one another.” Czmyrid column 4 lines 4-6 disclose “a server system may be configured and programmed to perform much or all processing so as to reduce the processing burden on a client device.” The programming of the server corresponds with executable program code instructions. The server system corresponds with computing apparatus.
Claim 31 further recites “cause the computing apparatus to: receive a first image file, wherein the first image file comprises an image of a first stone slab.” Czmyrid column 6 lines 56-57 disclose “slab image files 20 include a digital image 21 of an associated stone slab.” The slab image files correspond with a plurality of image files. The particular associated stone slab corresponds with a first image file of a first stone slab.
Claim 31 further recites “generate, on a display, an interactive graphical user interface, wherein the interactive graphical user interface comprises a drawing canvas and a layout; wherein the drawing canvas comprises a visual representation of an installation.” Czmyrid column 7 line 16 disclose “Client device 60 includes a user interface display 61.” Czmyrid column 7 lines 26-29 disclose “User interface display 61 may deliver visual output to a user related to the physical inventory of stone slabs 50, such as a scene depicting a stone slab in an installation environment.” A scene depicting a stone slab in an installation environment corresponds to a visual representation of an installation, which defines the drawing canvas.
Claim 31 further recites “wherein the visual representation includes one or more shapes, wherein each shape of the one or more shapes has a respective size and relative position.” Czmyrid column 6 lines 56-62 disclose:
slab image files 20 include a digital image 21 of an associated stone slab, and/or information related to the stone slab stored as image metadata 25, such as a unique identifier, manufacturing location and/or date/time, dimensional relationship(s), thickness, gloss readings, color characteristics, purchaser information, processing conditions, genealogy, etc.
The dimensional relationship(s) of the stone slab correspond to a shape with a respective size.
Czmyrid column 8 lines 1-6 disclose:
Server system 11 and/or client device 60 may include software programmed to identify geometry of a target area of the slab installation environment where portions of the slab may be installed, and subsequently divide the slab image into slab image portions fitted to the target area.
Fitting to a geometry of a target area corresponds with determining a respective shape and relative position.
Claim 31 further recites “wherein the layout comprises at least the image of the first stone slab overlaid by the one or more shapes.” Czmyrid column 8 lines 6-8 disclose “The slab image portions may be combined with the environment image at the target areas to generate a scene depicting the slab image portions in the installation environment.” Czmyrid column 8 lines 54-56 disclose “a menu 286 including one or more options for a user to modify 3D scene 285.”
Czmyrid column 27 line 57 column 28 line 3 discloses:
Alternatively or additionally, target areas 1171a, 1171b, 1171c, 1171d of the environment image 1170 may be manually identified via manual user input at client device 60 (e.g. while client device displays environment image 1170), such as by manually selecting an area of environment image 1170, drawing a box around an area, or otherwise manually designating an area of environment image 1170 as a target area. In an exemplary embodiment, system 10 identifies proposed target areas 1171a, 1171b, 1171c, 1171d displays the proposed target areas 1171a, 1171b, 1171c, 1171d to a user via a client device (e.g. by designating an area on broken lines, ghosting, etc.), and receives input from a user confirming or canceling selection of one or more of target areas 1171a, 1171b, 1171c, 1171d.
The broken line or ghosting representation of the proposed target areas corresponds with an overlay of one or more shapes of the layout.
Claim 31 further recites “receive, from a user device, a first user input associated with a first shape of the one or more shapes; automatically update, in response to receiving an input from a user changing a size or relative position of the first shape in either drawing canvas or the layout, the size or relative position of the first shape in the other of the drawing canvas or layout.” From the above list of alternatives the Examiner is selecting “relative position.”
Czmyrid column 26 line 31-33 discloses “a user may input by dragging a simulated stone slab image into a desired positioning on a target area.” User input is an input received from a user. Dragging the stone slab into a desired position is the user changing a relative position in the layout. This is an update of relative position of the shapes on the drawing canvas.
Czmyrid column 27 lines 11-15 discloses “The aesthetic characteristics of the specific stone slab, such as the positioning of veins or other visual appearances (e.g. that may vary slightly even between slabs having the same style), are accurately depicted in the installation environment, and may be adjusted by the user.” An accurate depiction which was adjusted by a user corresponds to an automatically updated depiction to remain accurate in the user interface.
Dependent claims 32-36 and 38-40 are substantially similar to claims 22-26 and 28-30 above and are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 27 and 37
Claims 27 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czmyrid as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, and further in view of US patent 9,922,455 B2 Pullan [herein “Pullan”].
Claim 27 further recites “27. The method of claim 21, wherein generating the interactive graphical user interface comprises generating a split screen of four parts, wherein a first part includes the drawing canvas and a second part includes the layout.” Czmyrid figures 3-4 show a user interface with at least four elements.
Czmyrid does not explicitly disclose generating a split screen; however, in analogous art of computer aided room planning, Pullan column 7 lines 36-39 teaches “the planning tool utilises a split screen display in which both the 2-D and 3-D versions of the plan are presented, and in which they are both updated, substantially in real time as the plan is developed.” The 2D display corresponds with a display of the layout. The 3D display corresponds with a drawing canvas.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Czmyrid and Pullan. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use split screen display into the system of digital image representation of stone slab building material for the advantageous purpose of a display suitable for both designers and customers. See Pullan column 7 lines 31-39.
Dependent claim 37 is substantially similar to claim 27 above and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 18 August 2026
Prosecution Insights