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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 22, 2024, was filed before the mailing date of this office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 24, 2025, was filed before the mailing date of this office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The Office objects to claims 8, 10–13, 15, and 16 for having the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required:
The phrase “an other” near the end of claim 11 appears to be a misspelling of the word “another.”
Claims 8, 10–13, 15, and 16 each use semicolons to separate lists of limitations, but in the parlance of this application (see e.g., claims 1 and 2), semicolons should only be used to denote entire clauses. Since claims 8, 10–13, 15, and 16 merely list further limitations for pre-existing steps in the parent claim(s), rather than adding new steps to the method, those lists of limitations need to be separated with commas, rather than semicolons.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,968,511 B1 (“Robertson”).
Claim 1
Robertson discloses:
A method, comprising: at an electronic device in communication with a display and one or more input devices:
“FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a system 10 for managing various types of data via a graphical user interface 12.” Robertson col. 5 ll. 23–25. As will be discussed below, the system 10 performs the same method as recited in claim 1 as part of its normal operation, and therefore, the system 10 anticipates the method. See MPEP § 2112.02. In any case, “the system 10 employs a user input 32, such as provided by a user input device 34,” which may include a “touch screen.” Robertson col. 5 ll. 3–9. The system 10 is thus properly understood to be an electronic device in communication with a display and one or more input devices.
presenting, via the display, a computer-generated environment,
“The graphical user interface 12 includes a graphical environment 14, which, in accordance with an aspect of the present invention, provides a graphical representation of a three-dimensional image space.” Robertson col. 4 ll. 26–29.
wherein the computer-generated environment includes a first set of user interfaces
“The GUI 12 also includes one or more clusters 16.” Robertson col. 4 ll. 33–34. To be clear, this rejection maps the each individually claimed set to each single one of the clusters. For example, the claimed first set of user interfaces may correspond to cluster 16 alone, and had the claim recited a second set of user interfaces, it would correspond to cluster 18.1
that includes a first user interface and a second user interface,
“Each cluster 16[] also can include any number of graphical objects 24, 26.” Robertson col. 4 ll. 43–44. “The graphical objects 24, 26 . . . can be programmatically associated with data, which can include textual data, image data, video data and/or audio data.” Robertson col. 4 ll. 44–47.
wherein the first set of user interfaces move together in response to movement inputs;
“When a cluster 16 or 18 is selected and moved, all objects associated with that cluster move accordingly in the image space 12.” Robertson col. 5 ll. 16–18.
while presenting the computer-generated environment, receiving, via the one or more input devices, a user input corresponding to a request to move the first user interface;
Referring to FIG. 23, while in an “initial state 700” in which the “cluster indicator and associated graphical objects (if any) are represented in the image space of the GUI,” the system 10 receives inputs to transition to “active state 702” and then the “selected state 704,” where, “the selected cluster is pulled or pushed, for example, via a traditional left mouse button clicking and dragging operation.” Robertson col. 22 ll. 45–63 and col. 23 ll. 3–20.
and in response to receiving the user input corresponding to the request to move the first user interface:
In response to the foregoing input, “the cluster enters a ‘moving’ state at 706,” where “its location information will be updated” in accordance with the movement. Robertson col. 23 ll. 18–39.
changing a first orientation of the first user interface; and changing a second orientation of the second user interface.
“FIG. 11 illustrates an example in which the selected cluster 312 is moved in the direction indicated by arrow 420 . . . . During such movement, it is to be appreciated that scaling can be implemented based on the simulated three-dimensional position of the cluster 312 that is being moved relative to the surface 302. In addition, it is noted that during movement of the cluster 312, the objects 348 and 350 can remain in a generally fixed position relative to the cluster indicator 320,” Robertson col. 16 ll. 5–20, or, in other words, “all objects associated with that cluster move accordingly in the image space 12.” Robertson col. 5 ll. 16–18.
Claim 2
Robertson discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to receiving the user input corresponding to the request to move the first user interface: moving the first user interface in accordance with the user input; and moving the second user interface in accordance with the user input.
“When a cluster 16 or 18 is selected and moved, all objects associated with that cluster move accordingly in the image space 12.” Robertson col. 5 ll. 16–18.
Claim 3
Robertson discloses the method of claim 2, wherein:
in accordance with a determination that the request to move the first user interface includes a request to move the first user interface in a first direction: moving the first user interface includes changing a size of the first user interface; and moving the second user interface includes changing a size of the second user interface;
“During such movement, it is to be appreciated that scaling can be implemented based on the simulated three-dimensional position of the cluster 312 that is being moved relative to the surface 302.” Robertson col. 16 ll. 5–20. Specifically, the figures disclose that the scale of each cluster depends upon its position along the depth dimension to give the appearance of three-dimensional perspective. See Robertson FIGS. 11 and 12. Also, it should be understood that in the 3D embodiments, the depth dimension is defined as “a front portion 304 near the bottom of the figure and a rear portion 306 simulated as extending into the display, which is located near the top of the figure[s].” Robertson col. 13 ll. 18–20.
and in accordance with a determination that the request to move the first user interface includes a request to move the first user interface in a second direction, different from the first direction: moving the first user interface includes moving the first user interface without changing a size of the first user interface; and moving the second user interface includes moving the second user interface without changing a size of the second user interface.
Since the scale of the clusters only depends upon their depth within the three-dimensional environment, lateral movements of clusters that do not alter the depth of those clusters likewise do not alter the scale of the clusters. See Robertson col. 8 ll. 56–61.
Claim 4
Robertson discloses the method of claim 3, wherein:
before receiving the request to move the first user interface in the first direction, the first user interface is a first distance from a user of the electronic device, and the second user interface is a first distance from the user,
As shown in FIG. 7, the GUI 300 includes a three-dimensional surface 302 with “a front portion 304 near the bottom of the figure and a rear portion 306 simulated as extending into the display, which is located near the top of the figure,” and with cluster 312 located at a particular height, width, and depth of the three-dimensional surface 302. Robertson col. 13 ll. 14–27.
and the request to move the first user interface in the first direction includes a request to change a depth of the first user interface from being the first distance from the user to being a second distance from the user, the method further comprising:
“FIG. 12 illustrates an example of the GUI 300 based on movement of the cluster 312.” Robertson col. 16 ll. 21–22. FIG. 12 further discloses that the request to move cluster 312 was for depth that is closer to the foreground than its original position disclosed in FIG. 7. See Robertson FIGS. 7 and 12; see also Robertson col. 24 ll. 23–25 and col. 27 ll. 14–15 (disclosing “rearward” and “forward” as eligible directions for moving objects in the GUI)
in accordance with the determination that the request to move the first user interface includes the request to move the first user interface in the first direction: moving the first user interface from being the first distance from the user to being the second distance from the user; and moving the second user interface from being the first distance from the user to being the second distance from the user.
“FIG. 11 illustrates an example in which the selected cluster 312 is moved in the direction indicated by arrow 420 . . . . During such movement, it is to be appreciated that scaling can be implemented based on the simulated three-dimensional position of the cluster 312 that is being moved relative to the surface 302. In addition, it is noted that during movement of the cluster 312, the objects 348 and 350 can remain in a generally fixed position relative to the cluster indicator 320,” Robertson col. 16 ll. 5–20, or, in other words, “all objects associated with that cluster move accordingly in the image space 12.” Robertson col. 5 ll. 16–18.
Claim 5
Robertson discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising:
in accordance with the determination that the request to move the first user interface includes the request to move the first user interface in the second direction:
As shown in FIG. 11 (relative to the starting state shown in FIG. 7), cluster 312 may be moved laterally instead of forward/rearward. Robertson FIG. 11.
moving the first user interface in the second direction without changing a distance from a user of the electronic device; and moving the second user interface in the second direction without changing a distance from the user.
during movement of the cluster 312, the objects 348 and 350 can remain in a generally fixed position relative to the cluster indicator 320,” Robertson col. 16 ll. 5–20, or, in other words, “all objects associated with that cluster move accordingly in the image space 12.” Robertson col. 5 ll. 16–18. Since the scale of the clusters only depends upon their depth within the three-dimensional environment, lateral movements of clusters that do not alter the depth of those clusters likewise do not alter the scale of the clusters. See Robertson col. 8 ll. 56–61.
Claim 6
The additional language of claim 6 consists of limitations that are contingent upon unmet conditions precedent, but “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” MPEP § 2111.04 (subsection II.).
Claim 6 requires a request to move the first user interface, but does not require the request to be a request to specify the first direction or second direction. Instead, claim 6 only recites what must happen if a determination reveals that the request specifies the first or second direction. Therefore, in order to reach a finding of anticipation, “the Examiner [does] not need to present evidence” of the method steps “that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.” MPEP § 2111.04 (subsection II.) (quoting Ex parte Schulhauser, PTAB Appeal No. 2013-007847 (April 28, 2016) (precedential)).
Here, the only required elements of claim 6, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, are the elements that claim 6 incorporates from claim 1 by reference. The prior art discloses those elements for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, the prior art also anticipates claim 6.
Claim 7
The additional language of claim 7 consists of limitations that are contingent upon unmet conditions precedent, but “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” MPEP § 2111.04 (subsection II.).
Claim 7 requires a request to move the first user interface, but does not require the request to be a request to specify the first direction or second direction. Instead, claim 7 only recites what must happen if a determination reveals that the request specifies the first or second direction. Therefore, in order to reach a finding of anticipation, “the Examiner [does] not need to present evidence” of the method steps “that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.” MPEP § 2111.04 (subsection II.) (quoting Ex parte Schulhauser, PTAB Appeal No. 2013-007847 (April 28, 2016) (precedential)).
Here, the only required elements of claim 7, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, are the elements that claim 7 incorporates from parent claims 1 and 6 by reference. The prior art discloses those elements for the reasons given in the rejections of claims 1 and 6. Therefore, the prior art also anticipates claim 7.
Claim 8
The additional language of claim 8 consists of limitations that further describe the unmet conditions precedent of its parent claim 6. That is, claim 6 only says what must happen if the electronic device determines that the request includes a first direction or a second direction, while claim 8 provides a further description of the criteria for making a determination of a request in the first direction or the second direction, along with a further description of how the electronic device’s behavior must “accord with” such a determination, if such a determination were ever made.
Neither claim 6 nor claim 8 recite a step requiring, in every iteration of the method, a determination that the request to move the first user interface includes the request to move the first user interface in the first or second direction, let alone horizontally or vertically. Therefore, in order to reach a finding of anticipation, “the Examiner [does] not need to present evidence” of the method steps “that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.” MPEP § 2111.04 (subsection II.) (quoting Ex parte Schulhauser, PTAB Appeal No. 2013-007847 (April 28, 2016) (precedential)).
The only required elements of claim 8, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, are the elements that claim 8 incorporates from parent claims 1 and 6 by reference. The prior art discloses those elements for the reasons given in the rejections of claims 1 and 6. Therefore, the prior art also anticipates claim 8.
Claim 9
Robertson discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein receiving the user input corresponding to the request to move the first user interface includes detecting a selection gesture from a hand of the user directed at a movement affordance and a movement of the hand of the user while maintaining the selection gesture.
Each “cluster can be selected to enter a ‘selected’ state at 704 . . . by a mouse click that occurs while the pointer is on or within a predetermined distance of the cluster indicator,” and “[w]hile in the ‘selected’ state 704, if the selected cluster is pulled or pushed, for example, via a traditional left mouse button clicking and dragging operation, the cluster enters a ‘moving’ state at 706.” Robertson col. 23 ll. 3–21.
Similarly, each “object can be selected (e.g., by a mouse click) to enter a corresponding ‘selected’ state at 1004,” and “[w]hile in the ‘selected’ state 1004, the selected object can be moved (e.g., pulled or pushed) so as to enter a ‘moving’ state at 1006. For example, the object can be moved via a traditional left mouse button clicking and dragging operation.” Robertson col. 26 ll. 8–18.
Claim 10
Robertson discloses the method of claim 9,
wherein the computer-generated environment includes one or more movement affordances of a first type
“Each cluster 310–316 includes a respective cluster indicator 318, 320, 322, 324 that provides a focal point to facilitate grouping of objects within the respective clusters.” Robertson col. 13 ll. 25–27.
and one or more movement affordances of a second type,
“FIG. 9 illustrates an example of the GUI 300 in which a cluster context menu 410 has been activated for the cluster 312 selected in FIG. 8. The cluster context menu 410, which can be a pop-up menu, includes selectable menu options that can be activated by the pointer 400 to perform corresponding operations relative to the cluster 312.” Robertson col. 15 ll. 17–22.
wherein: the one or more movement affordances of the first type are interactable to perform a first type of manipulation on the first user interface and the second user interface;
“In the example, of FIG. 8, the pointer 400 has been employed to select the cluster 312. The selection can be made, for example, by positioning the pointer and clicking on or near the cluster indicator 320.” Robertson col. 15 ll. 4–7. “Movement of the cluster 312 can be established by highlighting the cluster with the pointer 400, as shown and described in FIG. 8, and in turn, dragging the highlighted cluster via the pointer in the direction 420.” Robertson col. 16 ll. 7–10.
and the one or more movement affordances of the second type are interactable to perform a second type of manipulation on the first user interface and the second user interface.
“In this example, the available menu options include VIEW SHOW, SEND TO, DELETE, and RENAME,” Robertson col. 15 ll. 22–24, with further options available within the SEND TO option. Robertson col. 15 ll. 34–37.
Claim 11
Robertson discloses the method of claim 9,
wherein the computer-generated environment includes one or more movement affordances of a first type
“Each cluster 310–316 includes a respective cluster indicator 318, 320, 322, 324 that provides a focal point to facilitate grouping of objects within the respective clusters.” Robertson col. 13 ll. 25–27.
and one or more movement affordances of a second type,
“Each cluster 310–316 can include one or more graphical objects, which are visually associated with the respective clusters based on the distance or visual proximity between the objects and the cluster indicators of the respective clusters.” Robertson col. 13 ll. 53–57. To be clear, this rejection maps the claimed “movement affordances of a second type” to the individual graphical objects 340–364 (as numbered in FIG. 7), not the clusters as a whole.
the one or more movement affordances of the first type are interactable to perform a first type of manipulation and a second type of manipulation on the first user interface and the second user interface;
“In the example, of FIG. 8, the pointer 400 has been employed to select the cluster 312. The selection can be made, for example, by positioning the pointer and clicking on or near the cluster indicator 320.” Robertson col. 15 ll. 4–7. “Movement of the cluster 312 can be established by highlighting the cluster with the pointer 400, as shown and described in FIG. 8, and in turn, dragging the highlighted cluster via the pointer in the direction 420.” Robertson col. 16 ll. 7–10.
As shown in FIG. 12, clusters may be moved along the depth dimension (a first type of interaction). See Robertson FIGS. 7 and 12; see also Robertson col. 24 ll. 23–25 and col. 27 ll. 14–15 (disclosing “rearward” and “forward” as eligible directions for moving objects in the GUI)
Likewise, as shown in FIG. 11 (relative to the starting state shown in FIG. 7), cluster 312 may be moved laterally (a second type of interaction) instead of forward/rearward. Robertson FIG. 11.
and the one or more movement affordances of the second type are interactable to manipulate a given user interface of the first user interface and second user interface, without manipulating an other user interface of the first user interface and second user interface.
“In addition to performing the operations listed in the context menu 436 relative to the selected object 350, a selected object can be moved within the image space of the GUI 300. FIG. 15 illustrates an example in which the selected object 350 has been moved from the cluster 312 into the cluster 310.” Robertson col. 17 ll. 33–38.
Claim 12
Robertson discloses the method of claim 10, wherein:
the first type of manipulation includes a movement in a first direction;
“In the example, of FIG. 8, the pointer 400 has been employed to select the cluster 312. The selection can be made, for example, by positioning the pointer and clicking on or near the cluster indicator 320.” Robertson col. 15 ll. 4–7. “Movement of the cluster 312 can be established by highlighting the cluster with the pointer 400, as shown and described in FIG. 8, and in turn, dragging the highlighted cluster via the pointer in the direction 420.” Robertson col. 16 ll. 7–10.
and the second type of manipulation includes a movement in a second direction, different from the first direction.
“The SEND TO option, for example, can be used to export the objects 348 and 350 in the cluster 312 to an external device, to send the data to a desired application, to post the objects to a Web page, or to send the objects to one or more mail recipients via email.” Robertson col. 15 ll. 40–44.
As another example, “[t]he menu 412 also provides an option to send the objects 348 and 350 to an associated SCREEN SAVER application, which can present the graphical images in a known manner.” Robertson col. 15 ll. 57–59.
As yet another example, “[t]he delete function can be selected if a user desires to delete an entire cluster, including graphical objects.” Robertson col. 15 ll. 57–59.
Claim 13
Roberson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
before receiving the user input corresponding to the request to move the first user interface: the first user interface has a first distance from a user of the electronic device; and the second user interface has the first distance from the user;
As shown in FIG. 7, the GUI 300 includes a three-dimensional surface 302 with “a front portion 304 near the bottom of the figure and a rear portion 306 simulated as extending into the display, which is located near the top of the figure,” and with cluster 312—including all of its objects—located at a particular height, width, and depth of the three-dimensional surface 302. Robertson col. 13 ll. 14–27.
and after receiving the user input corresponding to the request to move the first user interface: the first user interface has a second distance from a user of the electronic device; and the second user interface has the second distance from the user.
“[D]uring movement of the cluster 312, the objects 348 and 350 can remain in a generally fixed position relative to the cluster indicator 320,” Robertson col. 16 ll. 5–20, or, in other words, “all objects associated with that cluster move accordingly in the image space 12.” Robertson col. 5 ll. 16–18.
Claim 14
Robertson discloses the method of claim 13,
wherein the first distance and the second distance are a same distance.
“[D]uring movement of the cluster 312, the objects 348 and 350 can remain in a generally fixed position relative to the cluster indicator 320,” Robertson col. 16 ll. 5–20, or, in other words, “all objects associated with that cluster move accordingly in the image space 12.” Robertson col. 5 ll. 16–18.
Claim 15
Robertson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
a normal vector of the first user interface is directed at a location in the computer-generated environment corresponding to a user of the electronic device; and a normal vector of the second user interface is directed at the location in the computer-generated environment corresponding to the user.
The Examiner observes that claim 15 uses the passive voice to describe the geometry of the normal vectors for the first and second user interfaces, without affirmatively requiring the electronic device to calculate or even know the direction of the normal vectors. For example, contrast the language of claim 15 with a method “further comprising: directing [[wherein]] a normal vector of the first user interface [[is directed]] at a location in the computer-generated environment corresponding to a user of the electronic device; and directing a normal vector of the second user interface [[is directed]] at the location in the computer-generated environment corresponding to the user.” Unlike the current form of claim 15, the foregoing version would require affirmative steps to be taken by the electronic device to direct the normal vectors of the user interfaces at the user’s location.
By definition, a normal vector is a vector that is perpendicular to a plane or surface at any given point, meaning any display of a first and second user interface in which the planes formed by those user interfaces are “facing” the location of the user will fall within the scope of claim 15. (Spec. ¶ 55). Accordingly, Robertson’s FIG. 7 explicitly discloses the display of the computer-generated environment exactly as it is claimed: the surfaces of 348 and 350 directly face the user’s point of view, thus, their normal vectors necessarily correspond to the user’s location relative to the GUI 12.
Claim 16
Robertson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
after receiving the user input corresponding to the request to move the first user interface: a normal vector of the first user interface is directed at a location in the computer-generated environment corresponding to a user of the electronic device; and a normal vector of the second user interface is directed at the location in the computer-generated environment corresponding to the user.
The Examiner observes that claim 16 uses the passive voice to describe the geometry of the normal vectors for the first and second user interfaces, without affirmatively requiring the electronic device to calculate or even know the direction of the normal vectors. For example, contrast the language of claim 16 with a method “further comprising, after receiving the user input corresponding to the request to move the first user interface: directing a normal vector of the first user interface [[is directed]] at a location in the computer-generated environment corresponding to a user of the electronic device; and directing a normal vector of the second user interface [[is directed]] at the location in the computer-generated environment corresponding to the user.” Unlike the current form of claim 16, the foregoing version would require affirmative steps to be taken by the electronic device to direct the normal vectors of the user interfaces at the user’s location.
By definition, a normal vector is a vector that is perpendicular to a plane or surface at any given point, meaning any display of a first and second user interface in which the planes formed by those user interfaces are “facing” the location of the user will fall within the scope of claim 15. (Spec. ¶ 55). Accordingly, Robertson’s FIG. 11 explicitly discloses “an example in which the selected cluster 312 is moved in the direction indicated by arrow 420,” while “objects 348 and 350 [] remain in a generally fixed position relative to the cluster indicator 320,” with the surfaces of 348 and 350 directly facing the user’s point of view both before and after the movement. Robertson col. 5 ll. 16–18. Therefore, any normal vectors that describe their respective surfaces necessarily correspond to the user’s location relative to the GUI 12.
Claim 17
Robertson discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the computer-generated environment includes a third user interface
“[T]he GUI 300 includes a graphical representation of a three-dimensional surface 302.” Robertson col. 13 ll. 16–17.
that is not a member of the first set of user interfaces,
The only elements that Robertson discloses for cluster 312 are objects 348 and 350—surface 302 is not listed as a cluster member. Robertson col. 13 ll. 64–65. Instead, “[t]he surface 302 provides a background or environment for displaying [the] one or more clusters in a three-dimensional environment.” Robertson col. 13 ll. 19–21.
the method further comprising: in response to receiving the user input corresponding to the request to move the first user interface, forgo changing an orientation of the third user interface.
“FIG. 11 illustrates an example in which the selected cluster 312 is moved in the direction indicated by arrow 420. Movement of the cluster 312 can be established by highlighting the cluster with the pointer 400, as shown and described in FIG. 8, and in turn, dragging the highlighted cluster via the pointer in the direction 420,” Robertson col.16 ll. 5–10, yet, across FIGS. 8 and 11, surface 302 remains entirely static.
Claim 18
Claim 18 is directed to an electronic device with general-purpose computer components that is configured to perform exactly the same method as set forth in claim 1. Robertson discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 1 above, and further discloses the electronic device, comprising one or more processors, memory and one or more programs, stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, for performing exactly the same method. See Robertson col. 19 ll. 42–67 and col. 20 ll. 1–45.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites a broader version of the memory portion of claim 18’s electronic device, including all of the same programs. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected over all of the findings and rationale provided in the rejection of claim 18 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
1 The presence of a second cluster in Robertson corresponding to an unclaimed second set of user interfaces falls within the open-ended “comprising” scope of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2111.03.
Prosecution Insights