DETAILED ACTION
The Office Action is in response to claims filed 2/23/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 8, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050152002 A1 hereinafter “Shirakawa” in view of US 20200250076 A1 hereinafter “Yu” and further in view of US 20110270851 A1 hereinafter “Mishina”.
With regards to claim 1, Shirakawa teaches
subsequent to initializing, by a processor, a frame buffer associated with a menu, decomposing content of the frame buffer into a text space, a foreground space, and a background space; (Shirakawa [0047-50], “A display control section 58 performs processing of thinning out the image data stored in the RAM 66 at a fixed scaling factor in response to the display area of the display, color space conversion processing, combining processing, etc., and drives an LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) 26 as the display based on the display data created by performing the processing [associated with a menu]. A frame buffer 62 contains a background area and a foreground area for separately storing the image data to be combined [a foreground space, and a background space]. The display control section 58 includes a combining processing circuit for displaying a composite image on the LCD 26 by displaying the pixels of the image data stored in the background area taking precedence over the transparent pixels of the image data stored in the foreground area and displaying the opaque pixels of the image data stored in the foreground area taking precedence over the pixels of the image data stored in the background area… The default image data stored in the background file represents an image 80, 82 as a default image made up of a line drawing, fills, text, etc [into a text space]. The hatched area is an area into which the image represented by subject image data is fitted (transparent area)”)
navigating the menu to a key node using a control key, (Shirakawa [0068], “At step S260, whether or not a mode switch command is entered, namely, whether or not the rotation angle of the dial switch 16 is changed is detected. If a mode switch command is entered within three seconds after display of the subject image at step S250, the playback mode is terminated and is switched into another mode. If a mode switch command is not entered, whether or not the next selection key 20 is pressed is detected at step S270. If the next selection key 20 is pressed within three seconds after display of the subject image at step S250, the process returns to step S200 and another piece of subject image data is selected and the above-described processing is repeated. At step S280, whether or not a state in which a mode switch command is not entered and the next selection key 20 is not pressed has continued for three seconds is determined with a timer (not shown). If the state has continued for three seconds, the process goes to step S290 and a transition is made to a print preview mode. The state in which steps S290, S300, and S310 are executed is called print preview mode, and the state in which steps S200 to S280 are executed is called standard playback mode.”)
Shirakawa teaches the key node but does not teach wherein [the key node] includes an expected text and an expected attribute; and
matching a text and an attribute of a current element to the expected text and the expected attribute, wherein the text is from the text space,
However, in an analogous art Yu teaches wherein […] includes an expected text and an expected attribute; and
matching a text and an attribute of a current element to the expected text and the expected attribute, wherein the text is from the text space, (Yu [0035], “For example, node 405 in FIG. 4 may represent the display of a profile page (such as the pages shown in FIG. 1A and/or 1B), or identifiable attributes of the profile page (e.g., a Uniform Resource Locator (“URL”), Element ID, and/or some other programmatic identifier of the profile page) [a text and an attribute of a current element]. The profile page may have been identified using, for example, an image recognition technique (e.g., to identify that a given profile page is visually similar or identical to how a profile page would be expected to look), parsing text content of the page (e.g., identifying that some or all of the text, such as “Hi John!” is similar or identical to text that would be expected on a profile page), and/or some other programmatic technique (e.g., parsing a URL or Element ID of the page to determine that the URL and/or Element ID matches, or partially matches, an expected URL or Element ID of a profile page) [matching…to the expected text and the expected attribute,]. Both paths 401 and 402 may be shown as “entering” node 405, as paths 401 and 402 may be indistinct at the point in time represented by node 405.”)
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 incorporated the teachings of Yu into the teachings of Shirakawa. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to determine an expected background, foreground, and text area upon reaching a control screen/node, as in Shirakawa, and determining a match between expected and output attributes including text, as in Yu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of performing one or more actions that receive user interactions and creating the simulations to predict and validate accordingly (Yu [0030]).
The combination of Shirakawa and Yu does not teach and wherein the attribute is a foreground color from the foreground space or a background color from the background space.
However, in an analogous art Mishina teaches wherein the attribute is a foreground color from the foreground space or a background color from the background space. (Mishina [0056-57], “Regarding a bitmap image, it is determined whether a Picture Unique ID that is an ID unique to an image is the same. Regarding graphical properties, the degree of match in, for example, each of the foreground color, the background color, the line style, the width, and the height is determined.”)
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 incorporated the teachings of Mishina into the teachings of Shirakawa in view of Yu. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to determine an expected background, foreground, and text area upon reaching a control screen/node, as in Shirakawa, and determining a match between expected and output attributes including text, as in Yu, wherein the output attributes also include a background and foreground color, as in Mishina. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of using information to detect similarity between objects (Mishina [0025]).
With regards to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
The combination of Shirakawa, Yu, and Mishina does not teach: wherein the matching of the text and the attribute of the current element includes matching both an expected background color and an expected foreground color to the background color and the foreground color associated with the current element.
However, in an analogous art Mishina teaches wherein the matching of the text and the attribute of the current element includes matching both an expected background color and an expected foreground color to the background color and the foreground color associated with the current element. (Mishina [0056-57], “Regarding a bitmap image, it is determined whether a Picture Unique ID that is an ID unique to an image is the same. Regarding graphical properties, the degree of match in, for example, each of the foreground color, the background color, the line style, the width, and the height is determined.”)
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 incorporated the teachings of Mishina into the teachings of Shirakawa in view of Yu. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to determine an expected background, foreground, and text area upon reaching a control screen/node, as in Shirakawa, and determining a match between expected and output attributes including text, as in Yu, wherein the output attributes also include a background and foreground color, as in Mishina. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of using information to detect similarity between objects (Mishina [0025]).
Claim 9 is directed to an information handling system corresponding to the method limitations as disclosed in claim 1. Thus, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 1.
Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the method limitations as disclosed in claim 1. Thus, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 1.
Claims 2-3, 10-11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirakawa in view of Yu and further in view of Mishina as applied to claims 1, 9, and 15 above, and further in view of US 20240192837 A1 hereinafter “Chiou”.
With regards to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
The combination of Shirakawa, Yu, and Mishina does not teach: wherein the control key includes a navigation key.
However, in an analogous art Chiou teaches wherein the control key includes a navigation key. (Chiou [0059], “Point-and-click based users and keyboard based users interact with a web page's UI elements in a very different manner. In the point-and-click (PNC) modality, users move a cursor using a pointing device (e.g., mouse) and press buttons to activate a UI element underneath the cursor. In the keyboard modality, users must press keyboard buttons, such as “Tab” and “Shift” plus “Tab”, to move the browser's focus to a UI element that the user wants to interact with. Unlike the PNC modality, moving between UI elements with a keyboard happens sequentially; meaning that if a user is currently on element n and wants to interact with element n+i, then the user must press the “Tab” key i times until focus is on the desired element. The user may also press “Shift” key and “Tab” key simultaneously to move backwards through the elements. The ordering of the elements is determined by the browser based on the structure of the DOM, but may be overridden by a developer using JavaScript or HTML attributes, such as tabindex. Herein, the ordering of the elements in this sequence is termed the keyboard navigation flow of the web page's UI.”)
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 incorporated the teachings of Chiou into the teachings of Shirakawa in view of Yu and further in view of Mishina. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to determine an expected background, foreground, and text area upon reaching a control screen/node, as in Shirakawa, and determining a match between expected and output attributes including text, as in Yu, wherein the output attributes also include a background and foreground color, as in Mishina, with the control node associated with user navigation of a menu through the control key, as in Chiou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of using a set of keyboard commands to navigate to different items of interest in web applications to carry out a desired action in order to use keyboard commands that can navigate to different web pages or items of interest in an action while automatically identifying underlying elements that lead to observed problems (Chiou [0057-58])
With regards to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
The combination of Shirakawa, Yu, and Mishina does not teach: wherein the key node is associated with the control key.
However, in an analogous art Chiou teaches wherein the key node is associated with the control key. (Chiou [0149], “A directed-edge e∈E is defined as a tuple custom-characterν.sub.s, ν.sub.g, ϕcustom-character indicating that the browser's keyboard focus shifts from a source node ν.sub.s to a target node ν.sub.t, by pressing keystroke ϕ while ν.sub.s is in focus. All standard keystrokes for web user interface interaction are included where ϕ can be from the set of navigation keystrokes {Tab, Shift+Tab}, selection keystrokes {↑, ↓, ←, .fwdarw.}, actuation keystrokes {Enter, Space}, and dismiss keystroke Esc. In addition to detecting focus shifts, any attempt for the page to navigate away to a different URL is detected by instrumenting the onbeforeunload JavaScript event. For such occurrences, a forward edge e is constructed from the originating node to a special node added to the KFFG called ν.sub.ext (e.g., custom-characterν.sub.link, ν.sub.ext, Entercustom-character.”)
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 incorporated the teachings of Chiou into the teachings of Shirakawa in view of Yu and further in view of Mishina. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to determine an expected background, foreground, and text area upon reaching a control screen/node, as in Shirakawa, and determining a match between expected and output attributes including text, as in Yu, wherein the output attributes also include a background and foreground color, as in Mishina, with the control node associated with user navigation of a menu through the control key, as in Chiou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of using a set of keyboard commands to navigate to different items of interest in web applications to carry out a desired action in order to use keyboard commands that can navigate to different web pages or items of interest in an action while automatically identifying underlying elements that lead to observed problems (Chiou [0057-58])
Claims 10-11 are directed to an information handling system corresponding to the method limitations as disclosed in claims 2-3 respectively. Thus, claims 10-11 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 2-3.
Claims 16-17 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the method limitations as disclosed in claims 2-3 respectively. Thus, claims 16-17 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 2-3.
Claims 4, 6, 12, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirakawa in view of Yu in view of Mishina as applied to claims 1, 9, and 15 above, and further in view of US 20160328312 A1 hereinafter “Loder”.
With regards to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
The combination of Shirakawa, Yu, and Mishina does not teach: further comprising if the attribute of the current element does not match the expected attribute of the key node, then applying the control key.
However, in an analogous art Loder teaches further comprising if the attribute of the current element does not match the expected attribute of the key node, then applying the control key. (Loder [0078], “When the element is loaded the state is set to FOUND (410) and the action described in the test step is executed (412). After application of the action the state is set to VALIDATING (414). The conditions of the element are verified against expect conditions defined in the test step (416). If the conditions of the element match the expected conditions (YES at 418) the test step is completed. If the conditions do not match the expected conditions (NO at 418) an adaptive delay (422) can be applied and the state can be set to UNSTABLE (424). On subsequent iterations the delay can be increased up until a defined threshold. If the delay has not expired (NO at 426) the element is loaded (408) and action re-applied. If the delay has expired (YES at 426) the action is identified as failed (428).”)
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 incorporated the teachings of Loder into the teachings of Shirakawa in view of Yu and further in view of Mishina. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to determine an expected background, foreground, and text area upon reaching a control screen/node, as in Shirakawa, and determining a match between expected and output attributes including text, as in Yu, wherein the output attributes also include a background and foreground color, as in Mishina, and reapplying or re-executing an action if the output fails to match the intended attribute, as in Loder. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of loading the interface element in the application associated with an action and re-executing the action if the expected conditions are not met until the action is verified (Loder [0022]).
With regards to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
The combination of Shirakawa, Yu, and Mishina does not teach: wherein the control key is applied until the key node or a maximum number of retries is reached.
However, in an analogous art Loder teaches wherein the control key is applied until the key node or a maximum number of retries is reached. (Loder [0031], “setting a state associated with an element when the interface element is being loaded; loading the interface element in the application associated with the action; attempting the action defined for the interface element; changing the state associated with the interface element during execution; verify conditions of the element against expected conditions; applying an adaptive delay between subsequent execution of the actions when the expected conditions for the interface element are not met; iteratively re-executing the action on the interface element where the adaptive delay is applied until the action is verified or the adaptive delay expires.”) [Examiner’s Note: A verified action means that the key node has been reached and the verification indicates the state accordingly]
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 incorporated the teachings of Loder into the teachings of Shirakawa in view of Yu and further in view of Mishina. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to determine an expected background, foreground, and text area upon reaching a control screen/node, as in Shirakawa, and determining a match between expected and output attributes including text, as in Yu, wherein the output attributes also include a background and foreground color, as in Mishina, and reapplying or re-executing an action if the output fails to match the intended attribute, as in Loder. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of loading the interface element in the application associated with an action and re-executing the action if the expected conditions are not met until the action is verified (Loder [0022]).
With regards to claim 14, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated.
The combination of Shirakawa, Yu, and Mishina does not teach: wherein the control key is applied until the key node or a maximum number of retries is reached.
However, in an analogous art Loder teaches wherein the control key is applied until the key node or a maximum number of retries is reached. (Loder [0031], “setting a state associated with an element when the interface element is being loaded; loading the interface element in the application associated with the action; attempting the action defined for the interface element; changing the state associated with the interface element during execution; verify conditions of the element against expected conditions; applying an adaptive delay between subsequent execution of the actions when the expected conditions for the interface element are not met; iteratively re-executing the action on the interface element where the adaptive delay is applied until the action is verified or the adaptive delay expires.”) [Examiner’s Note: A verified action means that the key node has been reached and the verification indicates the state accordingly]
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 incorporated the teachings of Loder into the teachings of Shirakawa in view of Yu and further in view of Mishina. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to determine an expected background, foreground, and text area upon reaching a control screen/node, as in Shirakawa, and determining a match between expected and output attributes including text, as in Yu, wherein the output attributes also include a background and foreground color, as in Mishina, and reapplying or re-executing an action if the output fails to match the intended attribute, as in Loder. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of loading the interface element in the application associated with an action and re-executing the action if the expected conditions are not met until the action is verified (Loder [0022]).
Claim 12 is directed to an information handling system corresponding to the method limitations as disclosed in claim 4. Thus, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 4.
Claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the method limitations as disclosed in claim 4. Thus, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 4.
Claims 5, 13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirakawa in view of Yu in view of Mishina and further in view of Loder as applied to claims 4, 12, and 18 above, and further in view of US 20160098330 A1 hereinafter “Mu.
With regards to claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated.
The combination of Shirakawa, Yu, Mishina, and Loder does not teach: subsequent to applying the control key, determining whether a maximum number of retries is reached.
However, in an analogous art Mu teaches subsequent to applying the control key, determining whether a maximum number of retries is reached. (Mu [0151], “In contrast, in response to an indication of a short term failure either in the performance of an earlier operation by the access component 648 or in the commencement of performance of the data access command 570, the error component 6431 may allow the replica data access command 670 to be transmitted by the replication component 643 to the node 300y. The error component 6431 may also attempt one or more retries of the data access command 570 with the access component 648 until the access component 648 successfully accepts the data access command 570 after earlier refusing to accept it, or until the access component 648 provides an indication of successfully commencing performance of the data access command 570 after earlier indicating a short term error in attempting the commencement of that performance. In retrying the data access command 570, the error component 6431 may await the amount of time indicated as the retry delay interval within the metadata 630ab before attempting each such retrial. Further, the error component 6431 may cease retrying the data access command 570 in response to reaching the maximum quantity of retries and/or the maximum amount of time specified for retrials that may be indicated as the maximum retry period in metadata 630ab”)
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 incorporated the teachings of Mu into the teachings of Shirakawa in view of Yu in view of Mishina and further in view of Loder. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to determine an expected background, foreground, and text area upon reaching a control screen/node, as in Shirakawa, and determining a match between expected and output attributes including text, as in Yu, wherein the output attributes also include a background and foreground color, as in Mishina, and reapplying or re-executing an action if the output fails to match the intended attribute, as in Loder, and retrying the action until a determined threshold or maximum of retries has been reached, as in Mu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of determining if a data access command is successful or otherwise indicating a short/long term failure associated with further retries of command access (Mu [0170]).
Claim 13 is directed to an information handling system corresponding to the method limitations as disclosed in claim 5. Thus, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 5.
Claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the method limitations as disclosed in claim 5. Thus, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 5.
With regards to claim 20, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated.
The combination of Shirakawa, Yu, and Mishina does not teach: wherein the control key is applied until the key node or a maximum number of retries is reached.
However, in an analogous art Loder teaches wherein the control key is applied until the key node or a maximum number of retries is reached. (Loder [0031], “setting a state associated with an element when the interface element is being loaded; loading the interface element in the application associated with the action; attempting the action defined for the interface element; changing the state associated with the interface element during execution; verify conditions of the element against expected conditions; applying an adaptive delay between subsequent execution of the actions when the expected conditions for the interface element are not met; iteratively re-executing the action on the interface element where the adaptive delay is applied until the action is verified or the adaptive delay expires.”) [Examiner’s Note: A verified action means that the key node has been reached and the verification indicates the state accordingly]
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 incorporated the teachings of Loder into the teachings of Shirakawa in view of Yu and further in view of Mishina. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to determine an expected background, foreground, and text area upon reaching a control screen/node, as in Shirakawa, and determining a match between expected and output attributes including text, as in Yu, wherein the output attributes also include a background and foreground color, as in Mishina, and reapplying or re-executing an action if the output fails to match the intended attribute, as in Loder. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of loading the interface element in the application associated with an action and re-executing the action if the expected conditions are not met until the action is verified (Loder [0022]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirakawa in view of Yu and further in view of Mishina as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20250225060 A1 hereinafter “Sahu”.
With regards to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
The combination of Shirakawa, Yu, and Mishina does not teach: wherein the matching of the text and the attribute is performed using a regular expression
However, in an analogous art Sahu teaches wherein the matching of the text and the attribute is performed using a regular expression (Sahu [0055], “Column 228d specifies the label for each action within an automated testing scenario, serving as a key identifier for the targeted UI elements. Direct user interaction equivalents, such as those found in rows 224c and 224d, utilize labels like “go” and “add” to denote the interaction with specific command buttons or other controls. These labels can be literal descriptors, matching the text or name attributes of HTML elements, thus guiding the test script to the correct UI element. In some cases, the label acts as a shorthand, referencing more complex identifiers like classes or code-level labels, such as “button.add,” which the automation framework interprets to locate the necessary controls.”) [Examiner’s Note: A label/descriptor is interpreted as a string that can match searched UI/menu elements such as a regular expression to match an attribute]
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 incorporated the teachings of Sahu into the teachings of Shirakawa in view of Yu and further in view of Mishina. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to determine an expected background, foreground, and text area upon reaching a control screen/node, as in Shirakawa, and determining a match between expected and output attributes including text, as in Yu, wherein the output attributes also include a background and foreground color, as in Mishina, and the matching of the expected and output attribute text include comparing strings of regular expressions, as in Sahu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of comparing subsections on the screens that include text fields in order to identify discrepancies with various degrees of tolerances for differences (Sahu [0080-82]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li (US 20200026536 A1) teaches a detection engine that can determine, while executing as a thread of the application on the one or more processors of the client device, that a dimension of a text-designated region of a first user interface element of the application is less than that of corresponding text for rendering on the user interface element. The detection engine can provide, to a server responsive to the determination, an indication of a first UI anomaly. The indication can include information about a position and size of the first user interface element.
Mo (CN 113778898) teaches an automatic test frame locates and packages the page element in the page object based on the page object model, and uses the separation mode of UI layer operation, service layer regression and data layer verification. when receiving the UI test instruction, obtaining the test example and the corresponding UI automation script, wherein each UI automation script is independent from each other; based on the automatic test frame and the test example, invoking the UI automatic script to execute the automatic test on the page to be tested. The application realizes the clearness of the test service flow, which not only can accurately count the passing rate of the test example, but also can reduce the test cost of the whole user interface, the code redundancy is less, which is good for improving the software product quality.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS VIET TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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.
/T.V.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2191 /WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191