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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/06/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 11 and 17 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2021/0311683) in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0333545) in view of Petrou et al. (US 2011/0128288) in view of Smith et al. (US 2002/0010625) in view of Vaarandi (A Data Clustering Algorithm for Mining Patterns From Event Logs, IEEE, 2003).
Regarding claim 1, Jin et al. (hereinafter Jin) discloses an electronic device (Jin, [0104], “an electronic device with a foldable screen”) comprising:
an expandable display (Jin, Fig. 4); and
a processor (Jin, [0034], “a processor”) configured to:
perform an analysis on a first work displayed on a first display area of the expandable display (Jin, [0107], “a location B is mentioned in newest dialog data. In this case, the electronic device determines, based on the content “the location B” displayed in the first display area”. Determine the content is considered perform an image analysis on a first work),
determine a second work related to the first work based on an analysis result of the analysis (Jin, [0107], “the electronic device determines, based on the content “the location B” displayed in the first display area, that a corresponding application that the user expects to open by unfolding the foldable screen is a map application, that is, the electronic device determines (predicts) that the user expects to view in a map, a specific address of the location B which the user inputted into an input field in the application displayed in the first display area. Therefore, the electronic device determines and selects that the map application is the first target application, and displays the map application in the second display area”), and
display the second work on a second display area in response to an expansion of the expandable display (Jin, Figs. 3 & 4).
Jin teaches display more detailed information related to the second work (Jin, [0122], “display group-buying information in the first target application in the second display area after the user unfolds the foldable screen, for example, 188 yuan or other currency, and prompt the user to immediately buy a ticket in the second display area”); Jin does not expressly disclose “the expandable display gradually expands”;
Lee discloses an expandable display gradually expands, gradually display more information (Lee, [0046], “the second image 23 and the first image 22-1 may be different parts of one image. In other words, as shown in FIG. 2-(1), as the flexible display unit 21 is expanded, the device may display one image by gradually displaying the image from a part to the entire part”);
display a greater number of a plurality of works (Lee, [0046]. “gradually displaying the image from a part to the entire part”. The entire portion is viewed as multiple works display gradually, with greater number shown over time).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform Jin’s display method using Lee’s flexible display. The motivation for doing so would have been providing user convenience as the display expands and retracts.
Jin as modified by Lee does not expressly disclose “image analysis”;
Petrou et al. (hereinafter Petrou) discloses image analysis (Petrou, [0099], “one or more programs to perform local image analysis to pre-process or categorize the visual query or a portion thereof. For example, the client application 722 may recognize that the image contains a bar code, a face, or text, prior to submitting the visual query to a search engine”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Petrou’s image analysis in the electronic device with a foldable screen, as taught by Jin. The motivation for doing so would have been reducing manual effort in identifying and organizing images.
Jin as modified by Lee and Petrou does not expressly disclose “a plurality of works related to the first work and the second work is determined based on attributes of the first work”;
Smith et al. (hereinafter Smith) discloses a plurality of works related to a first work and a second work is determined based on attributes of the first work (Smith, [0155], “the user may select an "Instant Book Recommendations" or similar hyperlink to obtain a listing of recommended book titles, or may select a "Instant Music Recommendations" or "Instant Video Recommendations" hyperlink to obtain a listing of recommended music or video titles”. The recommendations are considered a plurality of works related to a first work. In addition, in paragraph [0052], “given a unary listing of items that are "known" to be of interest to a user (e.g., a list of items purchased, rated, and/or viewed by the user)”. List of items purchased, rated, and/or viewed by the user are considered as attributes of the first work).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jin’s application by incorporating the concept of Smith’s providing recommendations based on user’s interest and attributes. The motivation for doing so would have been enabling the user to receive personalized and relevant suggestions that align with their preferences.
In addition, Jin as modified by Lee, Petrou, Jin, and Smith does not expressly disclose “work patterns comprising clustered log records of work associated with the attributes”;
Vaarandi discloses work patterns comprising clustered log records of work associated with attributes (Vaarandi, B. The clustering algorithm, [0001-0002], “detect clusters that are present in subspaces of the original data space. The algorithm relies on the special properties of log file data discussed in the previous subsection, and uses the density based approach for clustering…The data space is assumed to contain data points with categorical attributes”. In addition, in Simple logfile clustering tool, [0009], “We have made many experiments with SLCT, and it has proven to be a useful tool for building log file profiles and detecting interesting patterns from log files”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the concept of Vaarandi’s identifying work patterns including clustered log records of work associated attributes to generate Jin as modified by Lee, Petrou, and Jin’s recommendations. The motivation for doing so would have been improving automation to achieve greater accuracy and efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Jin as modified by Petrou with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses analyzing of visual information appearing in an image of the first work (Petrou, [0099], “one or more programs to perform local image analysis to pre-process or categorize the visual query or a portion thereof. For example, the client application 722 may recognize that the image contains a bar code, a face, or text, prior to submitting the visual query to a search engine”), the analysis result comprises an image attribute of the image of the first work (Petrou, [0164], “the categories of the search results correspond to the query-by-image search system that produce those search results. For example, in FIG. 15 some of the categories are product match 1506, logo match 1508, facial recognition match 1510, image match 1512. The original visual query 1102 and/or an interactive results document 1200 may be similarly displayed with a category title such as the query 1504”), and the image attribute comprises content information of the image (Petrou, [0164], “the categories of the search results correspond to the query-by-image search system that produce those search results. For example, in FIG. 15 some of the categories are product match 1506, logo match 1508, facial recognition match 1510, image match 1512. The original visual query 1102 and/or an interactive results document 1200 may be similarly displayed with a category title such as the query 1504”).
Regarding claim 3, Jin discloses analyze of the first work and determining the second work at function level of an application (Jin, [0107], “the electronic device determines, based on the content “the location B” displayed in the first display area, that a corresponding application that the user expects to open by unfolding the foldable screen is a map application, that is, the electronic device determines (predicts) that the user expects to view in a map, a specific address of the location B which the user inputted into an input field in the application displayed in the first display area. Therefore, the electronic device determines and selects that the map application is the first target application, and displays the map application in the second display area”. In addition, in paragraph [0144], “The computer program product includes one or more computer instructions. When the computer program instructions are loaded and executed on the computer, the procedure or functions according to the embodiments of this application are all or partially generated”);
Jin as modified by Lee, Petrou, Jin, Smith, and Vaarandi with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses generate the log records (Vaarandi, B. The clustering algorithm, [0001-0002], “detect clusters that are present in subspaces of the original data space. The algorithm relies on the special properties of log file data discussed in the previous subsection, and uses the density based approach for clustering…The data space is assumed to contain data points with categorical attributes”).
Regarding claim 11, Jin discloses a control method of an electronic device (Jin, [0105], “FIG. 3 is a schematic structural diagram of a front face of an electronic device to which a display method according to this application is applied”).
The limitations recite in claim 11 are similar in scope to the functions recited in claim 1 and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites method that is similar in scope to the function recited in claim 2 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites method that is similar in scope to the function recited in claim 3 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2021/0311683) in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0333545) in view of Petrou et al. (US 2011/0128288) in view of Smith et al. (US 2002/0010625) in view of Vaarandi, as applied to claims 1 and 11, in further view of in view of Kasina (US 2018/0150444).
Regarding claim 5, Jin discloses determine executing a preferred application (Jin, [0107], “the electronic device determines and selects that the map application is the first target application”. The map application is considered a preferred application) and a user of the electronic device (Jin, [0118], “the electronic device selects one of the two display methods for use, or the electronic device may execute one of the display methods based on a setting instruction of the user”);
Jin as modified by Lee, Petrou, Smith, and Vaarandi with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses considering work patters (Vaarandi, Simple logfile clustering tool, [0009], “We have made many experiments with SLCT, and it has proven to be a useful tool for building log file profiles and detecting interesting patterns from log files”);
Jin as modified by Lee, Petrou, Smith, and Vaarandi does not expressly disclose “viewing of a first image through an album application and when an identity of a person in the first image is specified based on the analysis result”;
Kasina discloses viewing of a first image through an album application and when an identity of a person in the first image is specified based on the analysis result (Kasina, [0051], “the set of input images collectively corresponds to an album. In some situations, the album includes groups of images taken at different respective locations, and/or groups of images otherwise pertaining to different subjects”. In addition, in paragraph [0101], “perform face recognition to determine the identities of the individuals depicted in the input images. The secondary attribute extraction component 904 can then consult a predetermined social graph or the like which reveals the nature of the relationship among the people depicted in the input images”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kasina’s face recognition to determine the identities of the individuals depicted in the input images and generate text passage based on the determined album attribute information in the display interface, as taught by Jin. The motivation for doing so would have been enabling the generation of a textual narrative based on a set of input images.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites method that is similar in scope to the function recited in claim 5 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2021/0311683) in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0333545) in view of Petrou et al. (US 2011/0128288) in view of Smith et al. (US 2002/0010625) in view of Vaarandi, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Larsen et al. (US 2016/0034459).
Regarding claim 7, Jin teaches the first work is viewing of a first image and the second work; Jin as modified by Lee and Petrou with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses when the first image is specified as a group photo based on the analysis result (Petrou, [0072], “a visual query may be an image or picture of a group of people. The interactive results document may include bounding boxes around each person, which when activated returns results from the facial recognition search system for each face in the group”);
Jin as modified by Lee, Petrou, Smith, and Vaarandi does not expressly disclose “an album application”;
Larsen et al. (hereinafter Larsen) discloses a first image through an album application (Larsen, Figs. 3C and 3D),
a group photo, and determine sharing with at least one person identified in the group photo (Larsen, [0094], “The UI 332 may further include a share button 348 to share the selected photos from the curated set 336 of photos with the selected entities in the list of entities 334, and a share button 350 to share the selected photos from the curated set 336 with perhaps a broader or different audience on a website of the media file sharing service(s) 130”. Figs. 3C and 3D).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the concept of Larsen’s album including shared media files are associated with one or more entities having social connections to the user to display Jin’s different applications. The motivation for doing so would have been enabling users to shar media files with others.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2021/0311683) in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0333545) in view of Petrou et al. (US 2011/0128288) in view of Smith et al. (US 2002/0010625) in view of Vaarandi, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Rojas (US 2017/0206861).
Regarding claim 8, Jin discloses when the first work is viewing of first content through an application (Jin, Fig. 3), and when an attribute of the first content is specified based on the analysis result (Jin, [0107], “the electronic device determines, based on the content “the location B” displayed in the first display area”), determine at least one of executing of a preferred application, executing of a preferred function of the preferred application (Jin, [0107], “the electronic device determines and selects that the map application is the first target application”. The map application is considered a preferred application), and providing of related content as the second work (Jin, [0107], “displays the map application in the second display area. Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 4, the electronic device optionally provides “Location B” input to the map application displayed in the second display area so the map application plots “Location B” (see below description)”);
Jin as modified by Lee, Petrou, and Smith with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses the attribute of the first content (Smith, [0052], “given a unary listing of items that are "known" to be of interest to a user (e.g., a list of items purchased, rated, and/or viewed by the user)”. List of items purchased, rated, and/or viewed by the user are considered as attributes of the first work);
Jin as modified by Lee, Petrou, Smith, and Vaarandi with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses considering work patters corresponding to attributes (Vaarandi, B. The clustering algorithm, [0001-0002], “detect clusters that are present in subspaces of the original data space. The algorithm relies on the special properties of log file data discussed in the previous subsection, and uses the density based approach for clustering…The data space is assumed to contain data points with categorical attributes”. In addition, in Simple logfile clustering tool, [0009], “We have made many experiments with SLCT, and it has proven to be a useful tool for building log file profiles and detecting interesting patterns from log files”);
Jin as modified by Lee, Petrou, Smith, and Vaarandi does not expressly disclose “a video application”;
Rojas discloses a video application (Rojas, [0036], “a videoconference application, as shown in FIG. 3B. Here, various icons or thumbnails 302, such as control elements, are presented on the closer screen while the content 304 such as the videoconference feed is presented on the other screen. FIG. 3C illustrates an instance where the videoconference is presented on upper screen 104a while a spreadsheet or other information is presented on lower screen 104b”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Rojas’s video application to display Jin as modified by Petrou and Trim’s application. The motivation for doing so would have been enabling content such as an item of interest in a particular application is presented on one screen while tools or other inputs for that application are provided on the other screen.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2021/0311683) in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0333545) in view of Petrou et al. (US 2011/0128288) in view of Smith et al. (US 2002/0010625) in view of Vaarandi, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Knarr et al. (US 2020/0320906).
Regarding claim 9, Jin discloses when an attribute of the application is specified based on the analysis result (Jin, [0107], “the electronic device determines, based on the content “the location B” displayed in the first display area”), determine at least one of executing a preferred application, executing a preferred function of the preferred application (Jin, [0107], “the electronic device determines and selects that the map application is the first target application”. The map application is considered a preferred application), and providing of related content as the second work (Jin, [0107], “displays the map application in the second display area. Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 4, the electronic device optionally provides “Location B” input to the map application displayed in the second display area so the map application plots “Location B” (see below description)”);
Jin as modified by Lee, Petrou, and Smith with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses the attribute of the first work (Smith, [0052], “given a unary listing of items that are "known" to be of interest to a user (e.g., a list of items purchased, rated, and/or viewed by the user)”. List of items purchased, rated, and/or viewed by the user are considered as attributes of the first work);
Jin as modified by Lee, Petrou, Smith, and Vaarandi with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses considering work patters corresponding to attributes (Vaarandi, B. The clustering algorithm, [0001-0002], “detect clusters that are present in subspaces of the original data space. The algorithm relies on the special properties of log file data discussed in the previous subsection, and uses the density based approach for clustering…The data space is assumed to contain data points with categorical attributes”. In addition, in Simple logfile clustering tool, [0009], “We have made many experiments with SLCT, and it has proven to be a useful tool for building log file profiles and detecting interesting patterns from log files”);
Jin as modified by Lee, Petrou, Smith, and Vaarandi does not expressly disclose “shopping of a first product through a shopping application”;
Knarr et al. (hereinafter Knarr) discloses shopping a first product through a shopping application (Knarr, [0094], “a user may be viewing an application 715 related to shopping on the non-foldable display 315. The electronic device 300 detects the context based on the shopping application 715. The electronic device 300 is configured to display a user's shopping list 720 along with the shopping application 715 when the electronic device 300 is opened to an unfolded state…display the user's shopping list 720 together with the shopping application 715 when the user enters the store associated with the shopping application 715”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Knarr’s shopping application to display Jin as modified by Petrou and Trim’s application. The motivation for doing so would have been providing a user interface for controlling presentation of applications depending on application type, device context, or time between when the device changes screen sizes.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2021/0311683) in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0333545) in view of Petrou et al. (US 2011/0128288) in view of Smith et al. (US 2002/0010625) in view of Vaarandi, as applied to claims 1 and 11, in view of Dahl et al. (US 2011/0216064) in further view of Li et al. (US 2020/0192540).
Regarding claim 10, Jin teaches the expandable display (Jin, Fig. 4); Jin as modified by Lee with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses additional expanded and the plurality of works of the second work (Lee, Fig. 2); Jin as modified by Lee, Petrou, Smith, and Vaarandi does not expressly disclose “a third work related to the second work is displayed on a third display”;
Dahl et al. (hereinafter Dahl) discloses display a third work related to a second work on a third display (Dahl, [0083], “the electronic device 101 includes multiple folding display panels 102, 104, and 106. When fully extended, the electronic device 101 can provide a panorama view similar to a wide screen television… the multiple configurable displays 102, 104, and 106 may enable the electronic device 101 to be used as multiple types of devices depending on how the electronic device 101 is folded or configured”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display Jin’s application using Dahl’s multi-panel including three active display surfaces. The motivation for doing so would have been enabling a panorama view.
In addition, Jin as modified by Lee, Petrou, Smith, Vaarandi, and Dahl does not expressly disclose “a combination work of at least two of the plurality of works”;
Li et al. (hereinafter Li) discloses a combination work of at least two of a plurality of works (Li, [0121], “The collection panel can also be configured to store and display collected content. The collected content can be a text, a picture, an audio file, a video file, a webpage link… For example, the collected content can be displayed in categories in accordance with pictures, files, and web page links”. The collection panel is considered a combination work).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the concept of Li’s a collection panel configured to store and display collected content to display Jin as modified by Lee, Petrou, Smith, Vaarandi, and Dahl’s content on the third display area, as it could be used to achieve the predictable result of the second work comprises a plurality of works related to the first work, and the third work comprises a combination work of at least two of the plurality of works. The motivation for doing so would have been enabling efficient management of related information.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites method that is similar in scope to the functions recited in claim 10 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2021/0311683) in view of Petrou et al. (US 2011/0128288) in view of Smith et al. (US 2002/0010625) in view of Vaarandi in view of Kasina (US 2018/0150444).
Regarding claim 17, Jin discloses an electronic device (Jin, [0104], “an electronic device with a foldable screen”) comprising:
an expandable display (Jin, Fig. 4); and
a processor (Jin, [0034], “a processor”) configured to:
perform an analysis on a first work displayed on a first display area of the expandable display (Jin, [0107], “a location B is mentioned in newest dialog data. In this case, the electronic device determines, based on the content “the location B” displayed in the first display area”. Determine the content is considered perform an image analysis on a first work),
determine a second work related to the first work based on an analysis result of the analysis (Jin, [0107], “the electronic device determines, based on the content “the location B” displayed in the first display area, that a corresponding application that the user expects to open by unfolding the foldable screen is a map application, that is, the electronic device determines (predicts) that the user expects to view in a map, a specific address of the location B which the user inputted into an input field in the application displayed in the first display area. Therefore, the electronic device determines and selects that the map application is the first target application, and displays the map application in the second display area”), and
display the second work on a second display area in response to an expansion of the expandable display (Jin, Figs. 3 & 4),
Jin as modified by Petrou with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses image analysis (Petrou, [0099], “one or more programs to perform local image analysis to pre-process or categorize the visual query or a portion thereof. For example, the client application 722 may recognize that the image contains a bar code, a face, or text, prior to submitting the visual query to a search engine”);
Jin discloses the at least one processor is configured individually or collectively to, when the first work (Jin, [0034], “a processor”);
Jin as modified by Petrou, and Smith with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses attributes of the first work (Smith, [0052], “given a unary listing of items that are "known" to be of interest to a user (e.g., a list of items purchased, rated, and/or viewed by the user)”. List of items purchased, rated, and/or viewed by the user are considered as attributes of the first work);
Jin as modified by Petrou, Smith, and Vaarandi with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses considering work patters comprising clustered log records of work corresponding to attributes (Vaarandi, B. The clustering algorithm, [0001-0002], “detect clusters that are present in subspaces of the original data space. The algorithm relies on the special properties of log file data discussed in the previous subsection, and uses the density based approach for clustering…The data space is assumed to contain data points with categorical attributes”. In addition, in Simple logfile clustering tool, [0009], “We have made many experiments with SLCT, and it has proven to be a useful tool for building log file profiles and detecting interesting patterns from log files”);
Jin as modified by Petrou, Smith, and Vaarandi does not expressly disclose “viewing a first image through an album application and when an identity of a person in the first image is specified based on the analysis result”;
Kasina discloses viewing a first image through an album application and when an identity of a person in the first image is specified based on an analysis result (Kasina, [0051], “the set of input images collectively corresponds to an album. In some situations, the album includes groups of images taken at different respective locations, and/or groups of images otherwise pertaining to different subjects”. In addition, in paragraph [0101], “perform face recognition to determine the identities of the individuals depicted in the input images. The secondary attribute extraction component 904 can then consult a predetermined social graph or the like which reveals the nature of the relationship among the people depicted in the input images”);
determine a second work by considering the identity of the person (Kasina, [0107], “” The knowledge lookup component 122 can find one or more records that are also associated with the attributes “bridge,” “Florence,” and “romantic couple.” It then retrieves whatever textual passages are associated with those records. Those textual passages may describe previous travel experiences of romantic couples on a bridge in Florence, Italy. The textual passages may also contain background information regarding the Ponte Vecchio”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kasina’s face recognition to determine the identities of the individuals depicted in the input images and generate text passage based on the determined album attribute information in the display interface, as taught by Jin. The motivation for doing so would have been enabling the generation of a textual narrative based on a set of input images.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites method that is similar in scope to the function recited in claim 2 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites method that is similar in scope to the function recited in claim 3 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ZHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3740. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached on (571) 272 - 7776. 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.
/KYLE ZHAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612