DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Claims 1,5, 8, 12-13, 16 and 20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
the claimed invention is directed to an abstract Idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8 and 16 recite:
“…detecting, [by a processor], a text element and a non-text element in a graphical user interface;
detecting whether the text element in the graphical user interface is truncated
by comparing the text element with an expected text element using a pattern-matching algorithm;
detecting contour key points of the non-text element in the graphical user interface:
reconstructing a copy of the non-text element in the graphical user interface that includes overriding contours of the non-text element based on the contour key points resulting in a reconstructed copy of the non-text element and
comparing the non-text element of the reconstructed copy to the non-text element of the graphical user interface,
wherein the comparing of the non-text element of the reconstructed copy to the non-text element of the graphical user interface returns a metric value;
determining whether the non-text element in the graphical user interface is truncated identical to the non-text element in the reconstructed copy
by comparing the non- text clement to a reconstructed copy of the non-text clement based on the metric value,
wherein the non-text element in the graphical user interface is not identical to the non-text element of the reconstructed copy if the metric value is greater than a threshold and
generating a report based on the comparing of the non-text element of the reconstructed copy to the non-text element of the graphical user interface.
that are certainly a mental process that a person can carry out mentally through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Claims 1, 8 and 16 additionally recite:
“ by/a processor”; “a memory” and “non-transitory computer-readable medium”
The additional elements “a processor”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “ memory” are directed to generic computer components which are recited at a high level of generality, but to nothing more than an instruction implement “to apply” the abstract idea using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 8, 16 additional elements do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea, but to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Thus, the additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1, 8, 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with regard to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “a processor”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “ memory” are generic computer component used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus claims 1, 8, 16 are not patent eligible.
-Dependents claims 2-7, 9-15 and 17-20:
claims 2, 9, 17 recite “…wherein the comparing of the text element with the expected text element, includes filtering a symbol...” that is data describing the data information used in the abstract idea.
Claims 3, 10 and 18 recite: “… wherein the filtering of the symbol is performed when the text element is not identical to the expected text element prior to performing another comparison of the text element with the expected text element.…” that is mental process.
Claim 4 , 11 and 19 recite: “… wherein the expected text element is extracted from a screenshot..…” that is data describing the data information used in the abstract idea.
Claims 5, 12 and 20 recite “…wherein the reconstructed copy of the non-text element is generated by overriding contour key points of a copy of the non-text element…” that is a mental process.
Claims 6-7, and 14-15 recite: “….wherein the detecting of the text element is performed using a deep learning text detector…”;”… wherein the detecting of the non-text element is performed using computer vision technology…”. That is using the generic computer component “to apply” the abstract idea and as discussed above it fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13 recites “adjusting color of the text element and the non-text element in the graphical user interface into a single color” that is a mental process.
Dependents claims 2-7, 9-15 and 17-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 1, 4-5, 8, 11-13, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaros et al US20130156322A1 in view of Li et al US20200026536A1 and Grechanik et al US20090217309A1.
As claim 1, Yaros discloses a method comprising:
detecting, by a processor, a text element and a non-text element in a graphical user interface:
fig. 3 and [0031] “A text identification technique, or OCR, is applied to the selected screen control (block 130). For example, OCR may be applied to a region of the graphical user interface as determined by coordinates of the selected screen control. Application of OCR may capture, interpret, and return a displayed text that accompanies the selected screen control.”;
detecting whether the text element in the graphical user interface is truncated by comparing the text element with an expected text element using a pattern-matching algorithm:
Fig.3 and [0033] The identified designated character string may then be compared with the displayed text of the selected screen control (block 150) that was identified via application of OCR (in the operation of block 130). “;.
[0034] In some cases, the identified displayed text may be shorter than the identified designated character string. For example, the identified displayed text may be missing a character that is present in the designated character string. The number of characters in the identified displayed text may be less than the number of characters in the designated character string. In such cases, a possible truncation of the identified displayed text may be indicated (block 160).
detecting contour key points of the non-text element in the graphical user interface:
[0011] “If the screen control is too small to accommodate the new longer character string, or if another nearby screen control limits the space available for the screen control (e.g. even if an application for designing a screen control automatically adapts a size of the screen control to its accompanying text), the text that accompanies the screen control may have been truncated.
[0024] “For example, a horizontal width of pushbutton 32a of graphical user interface 30 is shown as too small to accommodate the entire designated character string "Button text.”;
But not explicitly:
reconstructing a copy of the non-text element in the graphical user interface that includes overriding contours of the non-text element based on the contour key points resulting in a reconstructed copy of the non-text element
comparing the non-text element of the reconstructed copy to the non-text element of the graphical user interface,
wherein the comparing of the non-text element of the reconstructed copy to the non-text element of the graphical user interface returns a metric value;
determining whether the non-text element in the graphical user interface is truncated identical to the non-text element in the reconstructed copy by comparing the non- text clement to a reconstructed copy of the non-text clement based on the metric value,
wherein the non-text element in the graphical user interface is not identical to the non-text element of the reconstructed copy if the metric value is greater than a threshold
and generating a report based on the comparing of the non-text element of the reconstructed copy to the non-text element of the graphical user interface.
Li discloses:
reconstructing a copy of the non-text element in the graphical user interface that includes overriding contours of the non-text element based on the contour key points resulting in a reconstructed copy of the non-text element :
[0197]…The server can determine a boundary of a first UI element according to information about the position and area of the first UI element, received from the detection engine. The server can compare, at least over a region within the boundary of a first UI element (e.g., corresponding to a position and area of the first UI element), the image a1 superimposed onto the screenshot image b1, with the screenshot image A. Screenshot image A may correspond to an image containing at least the boundaries of the first UI element and/or second UI element, that is displayed by the client device. Screenshot image A may for instance be a full screen screenshot of the client device's display. The server can determine if there is a mismatch according to the comparison. The server can determine that there is a UI anomaly corresponding to an overlap, when the comparison indicates a mismatch.
comparing the non-text element of the reconstructed copy to the non-text element of the graphical user interface:
[0181] The server can superimpose or combine image a2 with the screenshot image b2, received from the detection engine. Image a2 may refer to an image of the second UI element (e.g., without any background details or foreground obstruction/details), and image b2 may be acquired by the detection engine by setting the appearance of the second UI element to be transparent. The server can determine a boundary of a second UI element according to information about the position and area of the second UI element, received from the detection engine. The server can compare, at least over a region within the boundary of the second UI element (e.g., corresponding to the position and area of the second UI element), the image a2 superimposed onto the screenshot image b2, with the screenshot image A. The server can determine if there is a mismatch according to the comparison. The server can determine that there is a UI anomaly corresponding to an overlap, when the comparison indicates a mismatch. The server can determine that there is no UI anomaly corresponding to an overlap (e.g., affecting the second UI element), when the comparison indicates a match..
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Li into teachings of Yaros for anomaly detection by one or more processor. A dimension of a text-designated region of a first user interface element of the application is less than that of corresponding text for rendering on the user interface element is determined while executing as a thread of the application on the one or more processors of the client device. An indication of a first UI anomaly is provided. The indication includes information about a position and size of the first user interface element. For example, the detection engine can compare the size of a UI element with that of the UI element's content (e.g., text), and can detect an intersection or overlap between UI elements. The detection engine can cause a server to perform overlap detection between UI elements for instance, and to provide feedback to the detection engine according to the overlap detection [0148].
But not explicitly:
wherein the comparing of the non-text element of the reconstructed copy to the non-text element of the graphical user interface returns a metric value;
determining whether the non-text element in the graphical user interface is truncated identical to the non-text element in the reconstructed copy by comparing the non- text clement to a reconstructed copy of the non-text clement based on the metric value,
wherein the non-text element in the graphical user interface is not identical to the non-text element of the reconstructed copy if the metric value is greater than a threshold
and generating a report based on the comparing of the non-text element of the reconstructed copy to the non-text element of the graphical user interface.
Greehanik discloses:
wherein the comparing of the non-text element of the reconstructed copy to the non-text element of the graphical user interface returns a metric value:
[0048]”The weighted analysis logic 250 may store a score 264 in a score table 266 based on each similarity value generated by the weighted analysis logic 250. Each score 264 in the score table 266 may correspond with a source identifier 268 and a destination identifier 270. The source identifier 268 and destination identifier 270 may be a unique value or combination of values (e.g., including GAP aliases) identifying the GAPs and GUI elements that the weighted analysis logic 250 compared to calculate each score 264.
determining whether the non-text element in the graphical user interface is truncated identical to the non-text element in the reconstructed copy by comparing the non- text clement to a reconstructed copy of the non-text clement based on the metric value:
[0049]“The match building logic 252 may compare the similarity values generated by the weighted analysis logic 250 and/or the scores 264 stored in the score table 266 against a similarity threshold 272. This comparison may determine whether two GUI elements are sufficiently similar to be considered a match from the current GAP version to the subsequent GAP version”;
wherein the non-text element in the graphical user interface is not identical to the non-text element of the reconstructed copy if the metric value is greater than a threshold:
[0054]”Having determined the similarity values, the GAP comparison logic 242 may use the match building logic 252 to determine whether GUI elements match between GAP versions. To that end, the match building logic 252 may compare the scores in the score table against the similarity threshold 272. GUI elements with scores that exceed the similarity threshold 272 may be considered matches under the assumption that the higher the similarity score, the more likely they refer to corresponding GUI elements. The match building logic 252 may create GUI element links in the base GUI difference model when matches are determined”
[0090] “The match building logic 252 may compare the values or scores against a similarity threshold to determine whether values or scores meet and/or exceed the similarity threshold. Alternatively, or additionally, the values or scores may be compared against a difference threshold to determine whether the values or scores are at and/or below a difference threshold.
Examiner interpretation: more difference means less similarity, and while similarity goes up difference goes down;
and generating a report based on the comparing of the non-text element of the reconstructed copy to the non-text element of the graphical user interface:
[0115]”In FIG. 9, the visualization logic 278 highlights matching GUI elements based on the similarity threshold set through the interface 902. The similarity threshold is relatively high. In the example shown in FIG. 9, the visualization logic 278 highlights the textbox elements 910, 912, 914, 916, and 918 in the portion 906 of the current GAP version 226, that match, respectively, to the textbox elements 920, 922, 924, 926, and 928 in the portion 908 of the subsequent GAP version 228. The textbox elements 910-928 have little or no changes in their characteristics between the subsequent GAP versions. The textbox element 930 and the combo box element 932 remain un-highlighted, however, because their characteristics differ to a greater extent, and the weighted comparison analysis does not determine a GUI element similarity value that exceeds the similarity threshold.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Grechanik into teachings of Yaros and Li to find differences in the GUI elements used to compose an interface between a current GAP version and a subsequent GAP version. One benefit is that a test script writer may better understand how the GAP has evolved in order to write a better test script for the subsequent version. Another benefit is that the comparator output may be analyzed by subsequent processing systems for automated analysis of test scripts build and debug the GAP itself .[Grechanik 0014].
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and furthermore, Yaros discloses:
wherein the expected text element is extracted from a screenshot:
[0028] “In one example, an image of a graphical user interface may be acquired as a screen shot or screen capture of a displayable or displayed graphical user interface”;
[0031] A text identification technique, or OCR, is applied to the selected screen control (block 130). For example, OCR may be applied to a region of the graphical user interface as determined by coordinates of the selected screen control”;
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and furthermore, Yaros does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the reconstructed copy of the non-text element is generated by overriding the contour key points of the copy of the non-text element.
Li discloses:
wherein the reconstructed copy of the non-text element is generated by overriding the contour key points of the copy of the non-text element:
[0197]…The server can determine a boundary of a first UI element according to information about the position and area of the first UI element, received from the detection engine. The server can compare, at least over a region within the boundary of a first UI element (e.g., corresponding to a position and area of the first UI element), the image a1 superimposed onto the screenshot image b1, with the screenshot image A. Screenshot image A may correspond to an image containing at least the boundaries of the first UI element and/or second UI element, that is displayed by the client device. Screenshot image A may for instance be a full screen screenshot of the client device's display. The server can determine if there is a mismatch according to the comparison. The server can determine that there is a UI anomaly corresponding to an overlap, when the comparison indicates a mismatch.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Li into teachings of Yaros and Grechanik for anomaly detection by one or more processor. A dimension of a text-designated region of a first user interface element of the application is less than that of corresponding text for rendering on the user interface element is determined while executing as a thread of the application on the one or more processors of the client device. An indication of a first UI anomaly is provided. The indication includes information about a position and size of the first user interface element. For example, the detection engine can compare the size of a UI element with that of the UI element's content (e.g., text), and can detect an intersection or overlap between UI elements. The detection engine can cause a server to perform overlap detection between UI elements for instance, and to provide feedback to the detection engine according to the overlap detection [0148].
Claims 8, 11, 12 are the system claim corresponding to method claims 1, 4, 5 and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claims 1, 4, 5 above.
Claims 16, 19, 20 are the non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to system claims 1, 4, 5 and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claims 1, 4, 5 above.
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated and furthermore, Yaros does not explicitly disclose:
adjusting color of the text element and the non-text element in the graphical user interface into a single color.
Li discloses:
adjusting color of the text element and the non-text element in the graphical user interface into a single color.
[0162]“The test utility 1110 can trigger or initiate a change in the UI 1104, by for example generating and displaying a UI element, switching between existing UI elements, changing a status of a UI element (e.g., between active and inactive status, or between foreground and background status), changing a parameter/setting/configuration of a UI element and/or its text area (e.g., set transparency or opaqueness, color, dimensions, location, shape, form, style, font type, font size, content, and so on)”;
[0199]“The server can highlight the region or provide the graphical indication in any shape, color or form. The server can send the updated image to the detection engine and/or the test utility to indicate any detected (or confirmed) UI anomalies”;
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Li into teachings of Yaros and Grechanik for anomaly detection by one or more processor. A dimension of a text-designated region of a first user interface element of the application is less than that of corresponding text for rendering on the user interface element is determined while executing as a thread of the application on the one or more processors of the client device. An indication of a first UI anomaly is provided. The indication includes information about a position and size of the first user interface element. For example, the detection engine can compare the size of a UI element with that of the UI element's content (e.g., text), and can detect an intersection or overlap between UI elements. The detection engine can cause a server to perform overlap detection between UI elements for instance, and to provide feedback to the detection engine according to the overlap detection [0148].
Claims 2-3, 9-10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaros et al US20130156322A1 in view of Li et al US20200026536A1 and further in view of Grechanik et al US20090217309A1 and Gray et al US9292739B1.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and furthermore, Yaros does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the comparing of the text element with the expected text element, includes filtering a symbol.
Gray discloses:
wherein the comparing of the text element with the expected text element, includes filtering a symbol:
Col 4 lines 57—63” Text detection in an image can include performing glyph detection on the captured image. The image can be separated into regions of similar grayscale values that fall within predefined size constraints called glyphs. Glyph classification can then be performed, where any glyphs that are not characters are removed using machine learning algorithms or other similar algorithms 306.”;
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Gray into teachings of Yaros, Li and Grechanik to adapt the ways in which text is captured, recognized, and processed using a computing device in order to enable users to capture and recognize larger bodies of text with the same. The techniques attempt to provide more accurate text recognition than techniques based on single image frames as well as provide the ability to scan and recognize text of large documents, which do not fit in the view of a single image. Such techniques can aid in increasing accuracy for various text recognition applications, such as business card recognition, mobile language translation, general text scanning, and the like. Further, such techniques could also be used to scan and digitize entire pages and books of text.[Col 3 lines 60-67].
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and furthermore, Yaros does not disclose:
wherein the filtering of the symbol is performed when the text element is not identical to the expected text element prior to performing another comparison of the text element with the expected text element:
Gray discloses:
wherein the filtering of the symbol is performed when the text element is not identical to the expected text element prior to performing another comparison of the text element with the expected text element:
Col 9 lines 8-14 “Accordingly, these corresponding pairs of words are first identified by first sorting both word lists by string length (and removing short strings). Then both lists are analyzed to collect exact string matches between the two sorted lists and this process continues until a threshold number of corresponding pairs between the two lists have been identified or until an end of one of the lists is reached.”
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Gray into teachings of Yaros, Li and Grechanik to adapt the ways in which text is captured, recognized, and processed using a computing device in order to enable users to capture and recognize larger bodies of text with the same. The techniques attempt to provide more accurate text recognition than techniques based on single image frames as well as provide the ability to scan and recognize text of large documents, which do not fit in the view of a single image. Such techniques can aid in increasing accuracy for various text recognition applications, such as business card recognition, mobile language translation, general text scanning, and the like. Further, such techniques could also be used to scan and digitize entire pages and books of text.[Col 3 lines 60-67].
Claims 9, 10 are the system claim corresponding to method claims 2, 3 and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claims 2, 3 above.
Claims 17, 18 are the non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to system claims 2, 3 and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claims 2, 3 above.
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaros et al US20130156322A1 in view of Li et al US20200026536A1 and further in view of Grechanik et al US20090217309A1 and Puszkiewicz et al US20200159647A1.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and furthermore, Yaros does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the detecting of the text element is performed using a deep learning text detector.
Puszkiewicz discloses:
wherein the detecting of the text element is performed using a deep learning text detector :
[0033]“In implementations, the model may comprise a machine-learning model that may be trained in a plurality of ways, including but not limited to a supervised and/or unsupervised learning algorithm, or a combination thereof. GUI validator 112 may be configured to validate each image based on the associated set of tags and the classification of the graphical objects identified in the image”;
[0072]“Object detector 318 may detect graphical objects on the captured image and object classifier 320 may classify the detected objects as described above. Upon classification, object classifier 320 may be configured to extract text from one or more classified objects and UI image validator 322 may compare the text expected to be present in the image (e.g., based on one or more associated tags) with the text extracted from the captured image”;
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Puszkiewicz into teachings of Yaros, Li and Grechanik to utilize machine vision techniques described herein to automate the validation of application GUI for the revised version of application to ensure that the revised application (and as a result, the updated GUI) conforms to one or more baseline versions that were previously validated, and in some cases verified through validator UI .[Puszkiewicz 0092]
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and furthermore, Yaros does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the detecting of the non-text element is performed using computer vision technology.
Puszkiewicz discloses:
wherein the detecting of the non-text element is performed using computer vision technology.
[0092]“In such an example, interface validation system 108 may utilize machine vision techniques described herein to automate the validation of application GUI 312 for the revised version of application 310 to ensure that the revised application (and as a result, the updated GUI) conforms to one or more baseline versions that were previously validated, and in some cases verified through validator UI 104”;
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Puszkiewicz into teachings of Yaros, Li and Grechanik to utilize machine vision techniques described herein to automate the validation of application GUI for the revised version of application to ensure that the revised application (and as a result, the updated GUI) conforms to one or more baseline versions that were previously validated, and in some cases verified through validator UI [Puszkiewicz 0092]
Claims 14, 15 are the system claim corresponding to method claims 6, 7 and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claims 6, 7 above.
Pertinent arts:
US20170031879A1:
A method and apparatus is provided for automatically detecting text truncation in a page of a graphical user interface (GUI).
US10963731B1:
A server analyzes the image file to identify error conditions that exist in the current UI view. The server assigns a classification to the image file according to one or more error types based upon the error conditions identified in the current UI view. The server transmits a notification message to one or more remote computing devices, the notification message comprising the image file and the classification assigned to the image file.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAHIM BOURZIK whose telephone number is (571)270-7155. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8-4:30).
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, Wei Y Mui can be reached at 571-270-2738. 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.
/BRAHIM BOURZIK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2191
/WEI Y MUI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights