DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 4/7/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/7/2026 has been entered.
Claims Status
Claims 1-13 and 17-22 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1 and 17 are independent.
Claims 14-16 are previously canceled.
Claims 1-10, 13, 17-22 are newly amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites “further comprising changing the mouse icon wherein the changing the mouse icon comprises”, wherein it seems the applicant intended “further comprising changing the mouse icon, wherein the changing the mouse icon comprises” [Note comma after first instance of “the mouse icon”].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or 112(2nd)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites that “redrawing the application interface corresponding to the interface type”, after reciting “determining an interface type of the application interface when the hover effect can be displayed on the application interface”, but doesn’t provide a nexus between why the interface type is determined “when the hover effect can be displayed on the application interface” and the step of redrawing the interface. Here, this results in a reader of the claim having guess whether the redrawing reflects or does not reflect an execution of the hover effect that can be displayed. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets that the redrawing does reflect an execution of a hover effect, as reflected in Instant Claim 17. Correction required.
Claims 11 and 12 recite “the executing the hover effect”. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the “the executing the hover effect” as referring to executing a hover effect by “redrawing the application interface”. Correction required.
Dependent claims 2-13 are rejected as they depend on claim(s) above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 11-12, 17, 20, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Walkin; Brandon M. et al. (hereinafter Walkin – US 20210240332 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Walkin teaches:
A display method,
wherein the method is performed at least in part by an operating system of a terminal device, (e.g., operating system 126, ¶ 60 and fig. 1A, in portable device(s))
a screen projection application and
at least one other application that are run on the terminal device, (electronic devices may mirror their screens to other display devices that are connected via wireless communication protocols, e.g., Bluetooth® connection, ¶ 528 and fig. 11KK. The electronic devices being be mirror any application that )
the terminal device is connected to an external display in a wired or wireless manner, (electronic devices may mirror their screens to other display devices that are connected via wireless communication protocols, e.g., Bluetooth® connection, ¶ 528 and fig. 11KK)
and the method comprises:
receiving a desktop generation request from the screen projection application (interaction with an option 1162 initiates screen mirroring process, ¶ 528 and fig. 11KK)
and determining a screen projection desktop based on the screen projection desktop generation request, (initiation of mirroring process based on the request, ¶ 528 and fig. 11KK)
wherein the screen projection desktop comprises an application interface and a mouse icon, (user interface and cursor, e.g., ¶ 381, mirrored, ¶ 528, applications 136, ¶ 60 and fig. 1A)
and the application interface is an interface corresponding to any other application displayed on the screen projection desktop; (user interface and cursor, e.g., ¶ 381, mirrored, ¶ 528, applications 136, ¶ 60 and fig. 1A, which include at least one application for the mirroring function, and many other applications displayed in the mirroring)
and sending, by using the screen projection application, the screen projection desktop to the external display for display; (electronic devices may mirror their screens to other display devices that are connected via wireless communication protocols, e.g., Bluetooth® connection, ¶ 528 and fig. 11KK)
when the mouse icon is moved to the application interface, determining whether a hover effect can be displayed on the application interface; (during cursor movement, it is determined whether the user interface elements are selectable or otherwise interactable, and producing a change cursor characteristics [hover effect], if cursor is within threshold distance to selectable/interactable elements, ¶ 231 and fig. 6AJ)
determining an interface type of the application interface when the hover effect can be displayed on the application interface; (e.g., if the element is determined to be of a rectangular note type, a cursor is changed to confirm to the shape and size of the note, as to appear to be highlighting the note, ¶ 231. Herein, because the cursor changes to appear to highlight the note, it is interpreted that the interface type is determined “when the hover effect can be displayed on the application interface” Herein, interface type is broadly interpreted as including interface element types, e.g., images, in accordance with the Instant Specification ¶ 157 and fig. 9, as published)
Below, is it clear that the “redrawing” is the “hover effect” mentioned above?
Claim 17 make’s that missing connection
redrawing the application interface corresponding to the interface type. (e.g., if the element is determined to be of a rectangular note type, a cursor is changed [hover effect] to confirm to the shape and size of the note [corresponding to the interface type], as to appear to be highlighting the note, ¶ 231. Herein, “interface type” is broadly interpreted as including interface element types, e.g., images, in accordance with the Instant Specification ¶ 157 and fig. 9, as published. Modifying a cursor to conform to the shape and size of a rectangular note, acting as a hover effect to highlight it, involves redrawing the GUI interface because the event handler 190 must access a GUI updater 178 to update the visual state of the display, see ¶ 701, reflecting the changed cursor and highlighted object in accordance with ¶ 231. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets that the redrawing does reflect an execution of a hover effect, as reflected in Instant Claim 17).
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Walkin further teaches:
wherein the determining whether a hover effect can be displayed on the application interface comprises:
obtaining an access parameter;
and when the access parameter indicates that the application interface is accessible, determining that the hover effect can be displayed on the application interface; (because the elements determined as “selectable”, as discussed above, see ¶ 231 and fig. 6AJ, the parameter/characteristics of the elements are obtained and the elements are broadly interpreted as being “enabled” and/or an “accessible” [access parameter…enable parameter;], because they are “enabled” to allow “access”, when selected, to the interface element features, e.g., see ¶ 604)
and/or obtaining an enable parameter;
and when the enable parameter indicates that the application interface is enabled, determining that the hover effect can be displayed on the application interface; (because the elements determined as “selectable”, as discussed above, see ¶ 231 and fig. 6AJ, the parameter/characteristics of the elements are obtained and the elements are broadly interpreted as being “enabled” and/or an “accessible” [access parameter…enable parameter;], because they are “enabled” to allow “access”, when selected, to the interface element features, e.g., see ¶ 604)
and/or obtaining a stub parameter;
and when the stub parameter indicates that the application interface is not an invalid stub, determining that the hover effect can be displayed on the application interface.
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Walkin further teaches:
wherein the determining whether a hover effect can be displayed on the application interface further comprises:
determining whether an area of the application interface is less than or equal to an area threshold;
and when the area of the application interface is less than or equal to the area threshold, determining that the hover effect can be displayed on the application interface. (a size of an object is determined and if below a size threshold, the cursor overlays the object, as discussed above [hover effect], ¶ 428)
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Walkin further teaches:
wherein the determining whether a hover effect can be executed on the application interface further comprises:
determining whether the application interface is comprised in a preset first list, and/or determining whether the application interface is comprised in a preset second list;
and when the application interface is comprised in the preset first list or the application interface is not comprised in the preset second list, determining that the hover effect can be displayed on the application interface. (elements that are determined to be selectable elements comprise a “second type” [group/list] of elements, e.g., buttons, affordances, text entry region, etc., ¶ 400)
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Walkin further teaches:
wherein the determining whether a hover effect can be displayed on the application interface comprises:
when the interface type of the application interface is a non-text type, obtaining the enable parameter; (non-textual elements, such as buttons and icons, are also selectable/enabled, ¶¶ 290 and 400)
when the enable parameter indicates that the application interface is enabled, determining whether the application interface is clickable, or determining whether the application interface is long-clickable, or determining whether the application interface is context-clickable, or determining whether a hover listener obtains listened data, or determining whether a touch listener obtains listened data; (non-textual elements, such as buttons and icons, are also selectable/enabled, ¶¶ 290 and 400)
and when the application interface is clickable, or the application interface is long-clickable, or the application interface is context-clickable, or the hover listener obtains the listened data, or the touch listener obtains the listened data, determining that the hover effect can be displayed on the application interface. (interface element is selectable [clickable], e.g., ¶ 676, and touch events are handled by even handlers [hover listener], e.g., see ¶ 124)
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Walkin further teaches:
wherein when the interface type is an image type, the executing the hover effect corresponding to the interface type comprises: (per 112(b) note, “the executing the hover effect” is interpreted as referring to executing a hover effect by “redrawing the application interface”)
determining to display an image with first transparency; (the elements include elements of image type and the hover effect includes changing its transparency, ¶ 66.)
and/or determining to add a border around the image for display;
and/or determining to add a mask to the image for display.
Claim 12:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Walkin further teaches:
wherein when the interface type is the text type, (the elements may be of text type, e.g., see ¶ 177)
the executing the hover effect corresponding to the interface type comprises: determining a color, a font weight, a font size, a tilt angle, and/or an underline of a text on the application interface. (the hover effect includes changing the color and/or size of the elements, ¶ 421)
Claims 17, 20, 21 and 22:
Claim(s) 17, 20, 21 and 22 is/are directed to devices for accomplishing the steps in claims 1, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
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 of this title, 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) 2-3 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walkin (US 20210240332 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Daemen; Eike Marieke Lambert et al. (hereinafter Daemen – US 20160188188 A1).
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Walkin does not appear to expressly teach, but Daemen teaches:
wherein the method further comprises:
generating configuration information of the application interface, wherein the configuration information indicates whether the hover effect can be displayed on the application interface; (a user interface through which a user can adjust display settings, such as selectability of display components, ¶¶ 20 and 75 and fig. 2A)
recording the configuration information; (the user settings are stored, e.g., in a database, ¶ 50)
and when the mouse icon is moved to the application interface again, executing, by the operating system, the hover effect corresponding to the interface type and/or changing the mouse icon based on the configuration information. (the database is checked to ensure that the changes/settings are reflected in the display output, ¶ 51).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Walkin to include wherein the method further comprises: generating configuration information of the application interface, wherein the configuration information indicates whether the hover effect can be executed on the application interface; recording the configuration information; and when the mouse icon is moved to the application interface again, executing, by the operating system, the hover effect corresponding to the interface type and/or changing the mouse icon based on the configuration information, as taught by Daemen.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability and flexibility of the method, e.g., by adjusting display parameters to match the physical and cognitive capabilities of users, Daemen ¶ 5. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that in implemented Daemen with Walkin, new selectability settings would result in changes to hover effect discussed in Walkin.
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Walkin, as modified, Walkin-Daemen further teaches
wherein before the determining whether a hover effect can be displayed on the application interface, the method further comprises:
obtaining the configuration information recorded last time; (the database is checked to ensure that the changes/settings are reflected in the display output, ¶ 51, Daemen)
and when the configuration information indicates that the hover effect can be displayed on the application interface, executing, on the screen projection desktop, the hover effect corresponding to the interface type, and/or changing the mouse icon on the clickable application interface. (as discussed above, Walkin teaches that the hover effects are based on whether the interface elements are is clickable/selectable, ¶ 231 and fig. 6AJ. And such characteristic is changeable based on Daemen)
Claims 18-19:
The rejection of claim 17 is incorporated. Claim(s) 18-19 is/are directed to devices for accomplishing the steps in claims 2-3, respectively, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walkin (US 20210240332 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clapper, Edward O. (hereinafter Clapper – US 20020158846 A1) and DeStefano; George Francis (hereinafter DeStefano – US 6184885 B1).
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Walkin does not appear to expressly teach, but Clapper teaches:
wherein the determining whether a hover effect can be displayed on the application interface comprises:
when the interface type of the application interface is a text type, determining whether editing is performed on the application interface, and determining whether an input method manager is started on the application interface; (an application that allows for hiding the cursor [cursor effect] until text-entry mode is ended, ¶¶ 15 and 30 and figs. 2 and 4C)
when editing is not performed on the application interface or no input method manager is started on the application interface, (an application that allows for hiding the cursor [cursor effect] until text-entry mode is ended, ¶¶ 15 and 30 and figs. 2 and 4C)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Walkin to include wherein the determining whether a hover effect can be executed on the application interface comprises: when the interface type of the application interface is a text type, determining whether editing is performed on the application interface, and determining whether an input method manager is started on the application interface; when editing is not performed on the application interface or no input method manager is started on the application interface, as taught by Clapper.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve usability of the method by ensuring cursor activities do not interfere with text entry process, Clapper ¶ 18.
Walkin does not appear to expressly teach, but DeStefano teaches:
determining whether a hyperlink used for jumping to a page exists on the application interface; and when no hyperlink used for jumping to a page exists on the application interface, determining that the hover effect can be displayed on the application interface (a system in which a link pointer highlighting [cursor effect] may be enabled or disabled, Abstract and col 26:37-45).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Walkin to include determining whether a hyperlink used for jumping to a page exists on the application interface; and when no hyperlink used for jumping to a page exists on the application interface, determining that the hover effect can be executed on the application interface, as taught by DeStefano.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability and flexibility of the method by allowing user to customize which and how links are presented to the user, DeStefano col 3:37-51.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walkin (US 20210240332 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gray; Michael Shawn et al. (hereinafter Gray – US 20230341959 A9).
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Walkin does not appear to expressly teach, but Gray teaches:
wherein the application interface comprises at least one nested subinterface; (nested elements, ¶ 112, elements with parent/child relationships, ¶ 12)
and the determining whether a hover effect can be displayed on the application interface comprises: when a quantity of subinterfaces that can display the hover effect is greater than a preset threshold, determining that the hover effect can be displayed on the subinterface, and executing the hover effect or changing the mouse icon on the subinterface; or when a quantity of subinterfaces that can display the hover effect is less than or equal to a preset threshold, determining that the hover effect can be displayed on the application interface (determining that a maximum number of hover regions are simultaneously interacted and ignore some of the additional regions, ¶¶ 443-444).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Walkin to include wherein the application interface comprises at least one nested subinterface; and the determining whether a hover effect can be executed on the application interface comprises: when a quantity of subinterfaces that can display the hover effect is greater than a preset threshold, determining that the hover effect can be executed on the subinterface, and executing the hover effect or changing the mouse icon on the subinterface; or when a quantity of subinterfaces that can display the hover effect is less than or equal to a preset threshold, determining that the hover effect can be executed on the application interface, as taught by Gray.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the accuracy of the method by improving the identification of intended interactions, Gray ¶ 467.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walkin (US 20210240332 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toebes; John A. et al. (hereinafter Toebes – US 20150149949 A1).
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Walkin does not appear to expressly teach, but Toebes teaches:
wherein before the determining whether a hover effect can be displayed on the application interface, the method further comprises: obtaining a mode execution parameter; and when the mode execution parameter indicates that the hover effect can be displayed in a preset mode, determining whether the hover effect can be displayed on the application interface (an interface in which selectable characters [elements] are displayed based on an operating mode, ¶¶ 5 and 32 and fig. 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Walkin to include wherein before the determining whether a hover effect can be executed on the application interface, the method further comprises: obtaining a mode execution parameter; and when the mode execution parameter indicates that the hover effect can be executed in a preset mode, determining whether the hover effect can be executed on the application interface, as taught by Toebes.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the method by providing more display elements that are specific to selected modes and contexts, Toebes ¶ 10. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that in applying Toebes’ concept of mode-based selectable elements to Walkin, the hover effect [selectability] for the elements would depend on the specific active mode.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walkin (US 20210240332 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang; Yu Albert et al. (hereinafter Wang – US 20160239201 A1).
Claim 13:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Walkin further teaches that during cursor movement, it is determined whether the user interface elements are selectable or otherwise interactable, and producing a change cursor characteristics [hover effect], if cursor is within threshold distance to selectable/interactable elements, ¶ 231 and fig. 6AJ, and that when an element is selected, the cursor can become smaller, ¶ 218 and fig. 6P, and the illustrations are not mean to be exhaustive, ¶ 702.
Walkin does not appear to expressly teach, but Wang teaches:
further comprising changing the mouse icon wherein the changing the mouse icon comprises: replacing the mouse icon with a small hand icon. (a mouse cursor icon that can be in the shape of an open or closed hand, ¶ 39.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Walkin to include wherein the changing the mouse icon comprises: replacing the mouse icon with a small hand icon, as taught by Wang.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the flexibility and practicality of the method by implementing an icon in any familiar and known shape, Walkin ¶¶ 218 and 702 and Wang ¶ 39.
Response to Arguments
112(b):
The amendment of claim 17 overcomes the previous 112(b) rejection.
The amendment of generates issues with other claims, as explained in the 112(b) rejection above.
102/103:
Applicant's 102/103 arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, concerning claim 1, the applicant alleges that the Walkin fails to teach both 1) a screen projection application and generation request and 2) redrawing of the application interface, quotes Walkin ¶ 528, and suggests “the fact that Walkin teaches mirroring a desktop is not equivalent” to the claimed mechanism, because Walkin “only modifies a mouse for a selectable application interface”, but “does not modify the selectable application interface as the claim requires”… and “certainly does not modify it according to the type of the application interface” that Remarks Pg(s) 10-13.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
It is unclear why the applicant insist that Walkin ¶ 528, doesn’t teach the request, because it clearly teaches that interaction with an option 1162 initiates screen mirroring process, ¶ 528 and fig. 11KK.
Furthermore, Walkin teaches redrawing the application interface corresponding to the interface type. (e.g., if the element is determined to be of a rectangular note type, a cursor is changed [hover effect] to confirm to the shape and size of the note [corresponding to the interface type], as to appear to be highlighting the note, ¶ 231. Herein, “interface type” is broadly interpreted as including interface element types, e.g., images, in accordance with the Instant Specification ¶ 157 and fig. 9, as published. Modifying a cursor to conform to the shape and size of a rectangular note, acting as a hover effect to highlight it, involves redrawing the GUI interface because the event handler 190 must access a GUI updater 178 to update the visual state of the display, see ¶ 701, reflecting the changed cursor and highlighted object in accordance with ¶ 231. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets that the redrawing does reflect an execution of a hover effect, as reflected in Instant Claim 17)
Second, concerning claim 1, the applicant also alleges that “changing the cursor shape is different from these two requirements”. Remarks Pg(s) 10.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
Walkin teaches the receiving a mirroring request, as explained above.
Walkin’s changing of the cursor shape is an example of a hover effect, which is necessarily done by redrawing the interface to reflect the hovering effect, as explained in the response and 102 rejection section above.
The fact that the hovering effect is done by the redrawing of an interface is a well-understood requirement for displaying a hovering effect. The same is corroborated by the applicant’s Instant Specification:
As published – [0068]…the view system may be used to measure a size of each user interface (user interface, UI) element, determine a position of each UI, perform redrawing when content changes…When the mouse icon on the screen projection desktop is moved to the application interface on the screen projection desktop, the view system is used to determine to change a hover effect of the application interface and/or change the mouse icon on the application interface, and perform redrawing. Then, a redrawn view is transferred to the screen projection service, so that the screen projection service transfers, by using a corresponding driver, a redrawn screen projection desktop to the external display 200 for display. This ensures that the user can clearly view the position to which the mouse is moved, so as to perform a more accurate operation, thereby enhancing visual experience of the user.
Third, the applicant relies on the arguments above to further allege patentability of remaining claims (Remarks Pages 13-14).
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
BOZYK; Maciej et al. US 20160062486 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing the cursor in projection changes [hover effect] based on a touch position, Bozyk Claim 11, and a shape of the pointer can change based on state/mode, ¶ 43.
PAMIDI; Naga Siva Chandra Prasad US 20210240339 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing hover interactions for screens that do not have cursors, Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights