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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 9/16/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-11, 13, and 15-22 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, have overcome the objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with the Amendment have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
Specifically, Pars. [0070]-[0071] of Fackler disclose, "As illustrated in FIG. 5A, the time-series graph 110 and the time-series graph 120 include data plotted over the same time period (e.g., March to June). Furthermore, in this example the user may have selected water allocation values in the time-series graph 110 over a particular time period, represented by markers 510A-B, or the user may have selected temperature values in the time-series graph 120 over a time period, represented by markers 520A-B, causing the other time-series graph to display an automatically determined selection of the same time period...Marks 530. 540, and 550 may identify a time at which an event occurred and/or an annotation is marked and/or a time rang-e during which an event occurred and/or an annotation is marked.... The marks 530, 540, and/or 550 can be represented in various ways. For example, if the event occurs or the annotation is marked at a specific time instant, the marks 530, 540, and/or 550 can be represented as vertical lines. If the event occurs or an annotation is marked during a range of time, the marks 530, 540, and/or 550 can be represented as blocks (e.g., rectangular blocks) that encompass the time range." Thus, it can be clearly seen that Fackler merely discloses the marks may be represented as blocks that encompass the time range during which an event occurred and/or an annotation is marked, that is to say, only the width of the block mark along the X-axis (time-axis) is determined in the technical solution of Fackler, but is totally silent on how to determine the length of the block mark. Actually, as shown in the time-series graphs of Fackler, such as FIG. 5A, the marks 51OA-510B may merely be in the time-series graph 110 of water allocation values, and the marked 520A-520B may merely be in the time-series graph 120 of temperature values, but there is no mark that exists across all of the time-series graphs. Thus, Fackler does not disclose that the length of the block mark is a total height occupied by all of the time-series graphs.
In contrast, as defined in amended claim 1 of the present application, a corresponding labeling area is determined by taking the time range as a width and taking a total height occupied by the graphic information corresponding to the at least one analysis objects as a length. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Fackler fails to disclose the above distinguishing features of amended claim 1. Therefore, amended claim is patentable over Fackler.
The examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. Fackler discloses that the mark applies across multiple time-series graphs (Fackler, ¶0062). However, the Examiner notes that the claim recites “at least one time range”, and so while the Examiner notes that Fackler does disclose applying the mark across multiple graphs, such a limitation does not appear to be present in the claim.
Fackler also does not appear to be silent on the length of the block mark, as the marks are shown in the determined height throughout the figures. Fig. 9E for example shows the mark height (e.g. E990B) for a time period.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under prior art have been fully considered and are moot upon a new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment, as outlined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11, 13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 11, and 13 recite “taking a total height occupied by the graphical information corresponding to the at least one analysis object as a length”. Applicant’s Arguments filed with the Amendment do not appear to cite support for a “total height”, and the Examiner was unable to find support in Applicant’s Specification. Accordingly, this limitation is considered new matter.
Dependent claims incorporate all of the limitations of their respective independent or intervening claim(s) and are rejected on the same basis.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Fackler et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0306806), referred to as Fackler herein [previously presented].
Gallo et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0341981), referred to as Gallo herein [previously presented].
Rahul Kumar, “Visualization Tools for Time-Series Data”, https://medium.com/algoanalytics/visualization-tools-to-explore-time-series-data-f221d67a8a43, referred to as Kumar herein.
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added by the Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-11, 13, 15-19, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fackler in view of Kumar.
Regarding claim 1, Fackler discloses a data labeling method, comprising (Fackler, ¶0071 – time-series graph annotations):
in response to a trigger operation on a labeling button on a display interface, entering a labeling mode, the display interface comprising (Fackler, ¶0159-¶0162 – edit button enables users to perform manipulations on the data. Data manipulations include adding events or markers onto one of the displayed graphs):
graphical information corresponding to at least one analysis object arranged along a time axis (Fackler, Fig. 1 with ¶0058-¶0060 – time-series graph of data. X-axis represents time);
in response to a selection operation on at least one time range of the graphical information corresponding to the at least one analysis object within the display interface, determining a labeling area corresponding to the selection operation of the respective time range (Fackler, ¶0071 – user selection of a time range for annotation results in a rectangular block label that corresponds to the time range. Fig. 6B-6C with ¶0072, ¶0075-¶0077 – user enters a description of the event to annotate the selected time),
wherein the at least one time range is configured to represent different time periods on the time axis; in response to a labeling operation on at least one labeling area, generating labeling information corresponding to the at least one labeling area (Fackler, ¶0071 – user selection of a time range for annotation results in a rectangular block label that corresponds to the time range. Fig. 7A-7B with ¶0078-¶0079 - annotations entered by the user are displayed and indicated on the time series. See also Fig. 6B with ¶0146, ¶0163 – save button),
wherein determining the labeling area corresponding to the selection operation of the respective time range comprises: determining a corresponding labeling area by taking the time range as a width and taking a
However, Fackler appears not to expressly disclose the limitation in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kumar discloses time-series visualization tools (Kumar, Title, Page 1), including
determining a corresponding labeling area by taking the time range as a width and taking a total height occupied by the graphical information corresponding to the at least one analysis object as a length (Kumar, Pages 3-4 – orange band indicates a time period before the red dotted line where an event occurred. The orange band and red dotted line include a total height of the plot, including across multiple plotted time series).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the time range selection of Fackler to include using a total height based on the teachings of Kumar. The motivation for doing so would have been provide users with a better user experience (Kumar, Page 4), including assisting in visualizing the time period more cohesively across multiple plotted time series.
Regarding claim 2, Fackler as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein determining the labeling area corresponding to the selection operation of the respective time range in response to the selection operation on the at least one time range of the graphical information corresponding to the at least one analysis object within the display interface comprises: in response to at least one drag-selection operation within the display interface, determining a start pixel point and an end pixel point of the respective drag-selection operation; and for the respective drag-selection operation, determining a first timestamp corresponding to the start pixel point and a second timestamp corresponding to the end pixel point, and determining a corresponding time range according to the first timestamp and the second timestamp (Fackler, Fig. 3A-3C with ¶0049, ¶0059-¶0060, ¶0064-¶0065, ¶0075, ¶0107 – drag input to select a time range. Pixels selected are used to identify the time range in the time series. ¶0071 – user selection of a time range for annotation results in a rectangular block label that corresponds to the time range).
Regarding claim 3, Fackler as modified discloses the elements of claim 2 above, and further discloses wherein the graphical information corresponding to the at least one analysis object is sequentially arranged in rows in the display interface, and the graphical information corresponding to the respective analysis object extends along a direction of the time axis (Fackler, Fig. 1 with ¶0058 – time series graphs are arranged stacked in rows).
Regarding claim 4, Fackler as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the analysis object is network analysis result data (Fackler, ¶0051, ¶0111, ¶0114 – network traffic or storage measurements).
Regarding claim 5, Fackler as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein any two labeling areas do not overlap (Fackler, at least Fig. 6C-7B with ¶0077-¶0078 – Events 2 and 4, occurring at marker elements 550 and 650 do not overlap. In general, two annotations can be specified without overlapping in time).
Regarding claim 6, Fackler as modified discloses the elements of claim 2 above, and further discloses controlling the time axis to move in a lateral direction of the respective drag-selection operation, if it is detected that a pixel point where a cursor is located goes out of a current labeling range of the display interface during the drag-selection operation (Fackler, Figs. 16-17, ¶0135, ¶0144, ¶0158 – users can display new time values prior to the previously displayed time values by dragging left).
Regarding claim 9, Fackler as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses after determining the labeling area corresponding to the selection operation of the respective time range the method further comprises: displaying a labeling operation execution interface of the labeling area, the labeling operation execution interface comprising at least one of a tag type, a name, a time range, and remark information corresponding to the labeling area; and/or wherein after generating the labeling information corresponding to the at least one labeling area, the method further comprises: in response to a trigger operation on an edit control, displaying a modifying operation execution interface of the labeling area, the modifying operation execution interface comprising at least one of a tag type, a name, a time range, and remark information corresponding to the labeling area (Fackler, ¶0159-¶0162 – edit button enables users to perform manipulations on the data. Data manipulations include adding events or markers onto one of the displayed graphs. Fig. 6B-6C with ¶0072, ¶0075-¶0077 – user enters a description of the event (name/remark) to annotate the selected time range. The event number (tag type/name) is also listed).
Regarding claim 10, Fackler as modified discloses the elements of claim 8 above, and further discloses after generating the labeling information corresponding to the at least one labeling area, further comprising: displaying the labeling information corresponding to the at least one labeling area in a preset first display area; and/or, for each respective piece of the labeling information, displaying, within a preset second display area, the labeling information at a position corresponding to the time range according to the time range in the labeling information (Fackler, Fig. 7A-7B with ¶0075-¶0079 - annotations entered by the user are displayed and indicated on the time series).
Regarding claim 11, Fackler discloses a data labeling apparatus, comprising: at least one processor, a memory and a display, the memory storing computer execution instructions, the display being configured to display a display interface, and the at least one processor executing the computer execution instructions to cause the processor to (Fackler, ¶0071 – time-series graph annotations. ¶0171-¶0172 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory):
in response to a trigger operation on a labeling button on a display interface, enter a labeling mode, the display interface comprising (Fackler, ¶0159-¶0162 – edit button enables users to perform manipulations on the data. Data manipulations include adding events or markers onto one of the displayed graphs)
graphical information corresponding to at least one analysis object arranged along a time axis (Fackler, Fig. 1 with ¶0058-¶0060 – time-series graph of data. X-axis represents time);
in response to a selection operation on at least one time range of the graphical information corresponding to the at least one analysis object within the display interface, determine a labeling area corresponding to the selection operation of the respective time range (Fackler, ¶0071 – user selection of a time range for annotation results in a rectangular block label that corresponds to the time range. Fig. 6B-6C with ¶0072, ¶0075-¶0077 – user enters a description of the event to annotate the selected time),
wherein the at least one time range is configured to represent different time periods on the time axis; in response to a labeling operation on at least one labeling area, generate labeling information corresponding to the at least one labeling area (Fackler, ¶0071 – user selection of a time range for annotation results in a rectangular block label that corresponds to the time range. Fig. 7A-7B with ¶0078-¶0079 - annotations entered by the user are displayed and indicated on the time series. See also Fig. 6B with ¶0146, ¶0163 – save button); and
determine a corresponding labeling area by taking the time range as a width and taking a
However, Fackler appears not to expressly disclose the limitation in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kumar discloses time-series visualization tools (Kumar, Title, Page 1), including
determining a corresponding labeling area by taking the time range as a width and taking a total height occupied by the graphical information corresponding to the at least one analysis object as a length (Kumar, Pages 3-4 – orange band indicates a time period before the red dotted line where an event occurred. The orange band and red dotted line include a total height of the plot, including across multiple plotted time series).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the time range selection of Fackler to include using a total height based on the teachings of Kumar. The motivation for doing so would have been provide users with a better user experience (Kumar, Page 4), including assisting in visualizing the time period more cohesively across multiple plotted time series.
Regarding claim 13, Fackler discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores computer execution instructions therein, and when a processor executes the computer execution instructions, the processor executes steps of (Fackler, ¶0071 – time-series graph annotations. ¶0171-¶0172 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory):
in response to a trigger operation on a labeling button on a display interface, entering a labeling mode, the display interface comprising (Fackler, ¶0159-¶0162 – edit button enables users to perform manipulations on the data. Data manipulations include adding events or markers onto one of the displayed graphs):
graphical information corresponding to at least one analysis object arranged along a time axis (Fackler, Fig. 1 with ¶0058-¶0060 – time-series graph of data. X-axis represents time);
in response to a selection operation on at least one time range of the graphical information corresponding to the at least one analysis object within the display interface, determining a labeling area corresponding to the selection operation of the respective time range (Fackler, ¶0071 – user selection of a time range for annotation results in a rectangular block label that corresponds to the time range. Fig. 6B-6C with ¶0072, ¶0075-¶0077 – user enters a description of the event to annotate the selected time),
wherein the at least one time range is configured to represent different time period on the time axis; in response to a labeling operation on at least one labeling area, generating labeling information corresponding to the at least one labeling area (Fackler, ¶0071 – user selection of a time range for annotation results in a rectangular block label that corresponds to the time range. Fig. 7A-7B with ¶0078-¶0079 - annotations entered by the user are displayed and indicated on the time series. See also Fig. 6B with ¶0146, ¶0163 – save button); and
determining a corresponding labeling area by taking the time range as a width and taking a rectangular block label that corresponds to the time range, markers have a height based on the height of the time-series graph. Fig. 7A-7B with ¶0078-¶0079 - annotations entered by the user are displayed and indicated on the time series).
However, Fackler appears not to expressly disclose the limitation in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kumar discloses time-series visualization tools (Kumar, Title, Page 1), including
determining a corresponding labeling area by taking the time range as a width and taking a total height occupied by the graphical information corresponding to the at least one analysis object as a length (Kumar, Pages 3-4 – orange band indicates a time period before the red dotted line where an event occurred. The orange band and red dotted line include a total height of the plot, including across multiple plotted time series).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the time range selection of Fackler to include using a total height based on the teachings of Kumar. The motivation for doing so would have been provide users with a better user experience (Kumar, Page 4), including assisting in visualizing the time period more cohesively across multiple plotted time series.
Regarding claim 15, Fackler as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the at least one processor executes the computer execution instructions to cause the processor to: in response to at least one drag-selection operation within the display interface, determine a start pixel point and an end pixel point of the respective drag-selection operation; and for the respective drag-selection operation, determine a first timestamp corresponding to the start pixel point and a second timestamp corresponding to the end pixel point, and determine a corresponding time range according to the first timestamp and the second timestamp (Fackler, Fig. 3A-3C with ¶0049, ¶0059-¶0060, ¶0064-¶0065, ¶0075, ¶0107 – drag input to select a time range. Pixels selected are used to identify the time range in the time series. ¶0071 – user selection of a time range for annotation results in a rectangular block label that corresponds to the time range).
Regarding claim 16, Fackler as modified discloses the elements of claim 15 above, and further discloses wherein the graphical information corresponding to the at least one analysis object is sequentially arranged in rows in the display interface, and the graphical information corresponding to the respective analysis object extends along a direction of the time axis (Fackler, Fig. 1 with ¶0058 – time series graphs are arranged stacked in rows) .
Regarding claim 17, Fackler as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the analysis object is network analysis result data (Fackler, ¶0051, ¶0111, ¶0114 – network traffic or storage measurements).
Regarding claim 18, Fackler as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein any two labeling areas do not overlap (Fackler, at least Fig. 6C-7B with ¶0077-¶0078 – Events 2 and 4, occurring at marker elements 550 and 650 do not overlap. In general, two annotations can be specified without overlapping in time).
Regarding claim 19, Fackler as modified discloses the elements of claim 15 above, and further discloses wherein the processor executes the computer execution instructions to further cause the processor to: control the time axis to move in a lateral direction of the respective drag-selection operation, if it is detected that a pixel point where a cursor is located goes out of a current labeling range of the display interface during the drag-selection operation (Fackler, Figs. 16-17, ¶0135, ¶0144, ¶0158 – users can display new time values prior to the previously displayed time values by dragging left).
Regarding claim 21, Fackler as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein after determining the labeling area corresponding to the selection operation of the respective time range in response to the selection operation on the at least one time range of the graphical information corresponding to the at least one analysis object within the display interface, the processor executes the computer execution instructions to further cause the processor to: display a labeling operation execution interface of the labeling area, the labeling operation execution interface comprising at least one of a tag type, a name, a time range, and remark information corresponding to the labeling area; and/or wherein after generating the labeling information corresponding to the at least one labeling area, the processor executes the computer execution instructions to further cause the processor to: in response to a trigger operation on an edit control, displaying a modifying operation execution interface of the labeling area, the modifying operation execution interface comprising at least one of a tag type, a name, a time range, and remark information corresponding to the labeling area (Fackler, ¶0159-¶0162 – edit button enables users to perform manipulations on the data. Data manipulations include adding events or markers onto one of the displayed graphs. Fig. 6B-6C with ¶0072, ¶0075-¶0077 – user enters a description of the event (name/remark) to annotate the selected time range. The event number (tag type/name) is also listed).
Regarding claim 22, Fackler as modified discloses the elements of claim 20 above, and further discloses wherein after generating the labeling information corresponding to the at least one labeling area, the processor executes the computer execution instructions to further cause the processor to: display the labeling information corresponding to the at least one labeling area in a preset first display area; and/or for each respective piece of the labeling information, display, within a preset second display area, the labeling information at a position corresponding to the time range according to the time range in the labeling information (Fackler, Fig. 7A-7B with ¶0078-¶0079 - annotations entered by the user are displayed and indicated on the time series).
Claim(s) 7-8, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fackler in view of Kumar in further view of Gallo.
Regarding claim 7, Fackler as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses
However, Fackler appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Gallo discloses a time chart tool for selecting a time period associated with displayed measurement values (Gallo, Abstract), including
after determining the labeling area corresponding to the selection operation of the respective time range, further comprising: in response to a drag-selection operation on a left area boundary or a right area boundary of the target labeling area, adjusting the time range corresponding to the target labeling area (Gallo, Figs. 5A-H, 6A with ¶0083, ¶0085, ¶0089, ¶0094, ¶0101 – users are provided with an event modification button which enables drag adjustment of the time range start and end times).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the time range selection of Fackler to include editing the start and end times after creation based on the teachings of Gallo. The motivation for doing so would have been enable users to update or modify events as information or objectives change, or to correct inputs.
Regarding claim 8, Fackler as modified discloses the elements of claim 7 above, and further discloses wherein adjusting the time range corresponding to the labeling area in response to the trigger operation on the preset direction key comprises: in response to the trigger operation on the preset direction key, controlling an area boundary of the labeling area which matches the direction key to move, to adjust the time range corresponding to the labeling area; or, in response to a trigger operation on any area boundary of the labeling area and the trigger operation on the preset direction key, controlling the area boundary to move in a direction corresponding to the direction key, to adjust the time range corresponding to the labeling area (Fackler, ¶0174 – cursor direction keys for controlling cursor movement. Gallo, Figs. 5A-H, 6A with ¶0083, ¶0085, ¶0089, ¶0094, ¶0101 – users are provided with an event modification button which enables drag adjustment of the time range start and end times).
Regarding claim 20, Fackler as modified discloses the elements of claim 16 above, and further discloses
wherein the processor executes the computer execution instructions to specifically cause the processor to: in response to the trigger operation on the preset direction key, control an area boundary of the labeling area which matches the direction key to move, to adjust the time range corresponding to the labeling area; or in response to a trigger operation on any area boundary of the labeling area and the trigger operation on the preset direction key, control the area boundary to move in a direction corresponding to the direction key, to adjust the time range corresponding to the labeling area (Fackler, ¶0174 – cursor direction keys for controlling cursor movement).
However, Fackler appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Gallo discloses a time chart tool for selecting a time period associated with displayed measurement values (Gallo, Abstract), including
after determining the labeling area corresponding to the selection operation of the respective time range, further comprising: in response to a drag-selection operation on a left area boundary or a right area boundary of the target labeling area, adjusting the time range corresponding to the target labeling area (Gallo, Figs. 5A-H, 6A with ¶0083, ¶0085, ¶0089, ¶0094, ¶0101 – users are provided with an event modification button which enables drag adjustment of the time range start and end times).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the time range selection of Fackler to include editing the start and end times after creation based on the teachings of Gallo. The motivation for doing so would have been enable users to update or modify events as information or objectives change, or to correct inputs.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time.
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). 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.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights