DETAILED ACTION
The Office Action is in response to claims filed 05/21/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 7-9, 12, 15, and 18 are currently amended claims.
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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 contains a minor grammatical deficiency. The claim was amended to “when the the current text matches”. For the purposes of advanced prosecution the claim has been interpreted as follows: “the current text”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050152002 A1 hereinafter "Shirakawa" in view of US 20090217302 A1 hereinafter "Grechanik".
With regards to claim 1, Shirakawa teaches
A method comprising:
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.")
navigating the menu according to the navigation direction using the control key. (Shirakawa [0086], “The operation section 224 is provided with a plurality of switches such as an up switch 236, a down switch 232, a determination switch 230, a return switch 234, a print switch 228, and a cancel switch 226. A menu for making various settings is displayed on the first display 222. The up switch 236, the down switch 232, the determination switch 230, and the return switch 234 are switches for selecting a menu item. The print switch 228 is a switch for entering a print start command. The cancel switch 226 is a switch for entering a print cancel command. If the determination switch 230 is pressed in a state in which the screen shown in FIG. 12 is displayed on the first display 222, a transition is made to a mode for selecting the image to be printed. In the mode for selecting the image to be printed, one of the subject images stored in the removable memory 202 is displayed on the second display 218 and as the up switch 236 or the down switch 232 is pressed, the displayed subject image is changed in order.”)
Shirakawa does not teach: [navigating the menu to a key node using a control key,] wherein the key node includes an expected text of the text space, an expected foreground color of the foreground space, an expected background color of the background space, and a navigation direction;
matching a current text, a current foreground color, and a current background color of a current element to the expected text and the expected foreground color and expected background color respectively;
However, in an analogous art Grechanik teaches […] wherein the key node includes an expected text of the text space, an expected foreground color of the foreground space, an expected background color of the background space, and a navigation direction; (Grechanik [0286-287], “The script parser 166 evaluates arguments of navigation and action functions as expressions, variables and constants. The arguments express the physical properties of GUI objects to which the test script statement vectors navigate and values used to perform actions on those GUI objects … the script analyzer 170 uses the OR Lookup logic 172 to return from the object repository 174 the physical properties of the GUI objects navigated to by a test script statement vector. In one implementation, the OR Lookup logic 172 is divided into two sub-functions: 1) lookup logic adapted to locate and retrieve the physical properties of the GUI objects navigated to by the test script statement vector (e.g., 3802-3804, 3802-3806-3808, and 3802-3814); and 2) locator logic that finds and returns a GUI element difference entry (node) in the GUI difference model 162 that corresponds to the GUI object with the given physical properties. The OR Lookup logic 172 may include path traversal logic, discussed in further detail below, to identify possible navigation paths of the test script statement vector between a source node GUI object and destination node GUI object to which a test script statement vector navigates.”)
matching a current text, a current foreground color, and a current background color of a current element to the expected text and the expected foreground color and expected background color respectively; (Grechanik [201-203], “Different GUI characteristic weights 2356 may be assigned to the similarities or differences between different GUI element characteristics 2360 or properties that may be present or absent between the GUI elements in the two GAP GUI models. The GUI element characteristics 2360 may include GUI element characteristics such as size, XY position, color , window position, font type, font size, border style, background color, foreground color, Read-only/Read-Write, or any other GUI element characteristic …The match building logic 2352 may compare the similarity values generated by the weighted analysis logic 2350 and/or the scores 2364 stored in the score table 2366 against a similarity threshold 2372. This comparison may determine whether two GUI elements are sufficiently similar to be considered a match from the current GAP version to the subsequent GAP version. The match building logic 2352 may create a link between matching GUI elements in the GUI difference model 2344. ”) [Examiner’s Note: GUI elements characteristics represent physical properties of an GUI element wherein the physical properties can be obtained by the difference model (Grechanik [0230]). Note that GUI elements include text as well as described in paragraph [0097].]
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 Grechanik into the teachings of Shirakawa. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to determine background, foreground, and text area upon controlling a menu navigating to a screen/node, as in Shirakawa, and matching the node elements to their expected GUI element properties, as in Grechanik. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of comparing GUI differences and version representations for testing functionalities (Grechanik [0087-88]).
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 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 Grechanik 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 and Grechanik 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 tab index. 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 Grechanik. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to determine background, foreground, and text area upon controlling a menu navigating to a screen/node, as in Shirakawa, and matching the node elements to their expected GUI element properties, as in Grechanik, 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 and Grechanik 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 eEE is defined as a tuple custom characterv.sub.s, v.sub.g, $custom-character indicating that the browser's keyboard focus shifts from a source node v.sub.s to a target node v.sub.t, by pressing keystroke Φ while v.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 {t, I, 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 v.sub.ext (e.g., custom-characterv.sub.link, v.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 Grechanik. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to determine background, foreground, and text area upon controlling a menu navigating to a screen/node, as in Shirakawa, and matching the node elements to their expected GUI element properties, as in Grechanik, 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 Grechanik 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 and Grechanik 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 Grechanik. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to determine background, foreground, and text area upon controlling a menu navigating to a screen/node, as in Shirakawa, and matching the node elements to their expected GUI element properties, as in Grechanik, 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 and Grechanik 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 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 Grechanik. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to determine background, foreground, and text area upon controlling a menu navigating to a screen/node, as in Shirakawa, and matching the node elements to their expected GUI element properties, as in Grechanik, 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 and Grechanik 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 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 Grechanik. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to determine background, foreground, and text area upon controlling a menu navigating to a screen/node, as in Shirakawa, and matching the node elements to their expected GUI element properties, as in Grechanik, 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, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirakawa, Grechanik, and 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, Grechanik, 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 Grechanik and further in view of Loder. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to determine background, foreground, and text area upon controlling a menu navigating to a screen/node, as in Shirakawa, and matching the node elements to their expected GUI element properties, as in Grechanik, 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 and Grechanik 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 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 Grechanik. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to determine background, foreground, and text area upon controlling a menu navigating to a screen/node, as in Shirakawa, and matching the node elements to their expected GUI element properties, as in Grechanik, 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 Grechanik as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20250130932 A1 hereinafter “Zheng”.
With regards to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
The combination of Shirakawa and Grechanik does not teach: wherein the matching of the current text and the expected text is performed using a regular expression
However, in an analogous art Zheng teaches wherein the matching of the text and the
attribute is performed using a regular expression (Zheng [0052], “FIG. 6 shows an example of a GUI image 600 with text that is dynamically filled with different content at runtime after an automatic layout analysis. GUI image 600 includes text elements 605 and 610. FIG. 7 shows an example of a GUI image 700 which is similar to GUI image 600. GUI image 700 includes text regions 705 and 710 which correspond to text elements 605 and 610, respectively. In this example, both text regions 705 and 710 are truncated. Because the detected text in GUI image 700 changes dynamically, the GUI test system may utilize regular expressions to match the detected text to the expected text shown in GUI image 600. Table 1 shows examples of regular expressions that may be used in comparing expected text to the detected text.”)
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 Zheng into the teachings of Shirakawa in view of Grechanik. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method configured to determine background, foreground, and text area upon controlling a menu navigating to a screen/node, as in Shirakawa, and matching the node elements to their expected GUI element properties, as in Grechanik, and the matching of the expected and output text include comparing strings of regular expressions, as in Zheng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of checking for GUI element truncations using text element detectors (Zheng [0030]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 9-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights