DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “each group” on line 9 is unclear on what type of groups the term is referring to. Examiner recommends amending the term to read “each axis value group”. Appropriate correction is required.
3. Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the term " should not be in quotations, as it is unclear whether the claim is citing text from the specification, or if it is merely defining a limitation. Examiner recommends amending the term to read “altering between an expanded and a collapsed visual state”. Appropriate correction is required.
4. Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the group” on line 11 is unclear on what group the term is referring to. Examiner recommends amending the term to read “the axis value group”. Appropriate correction is required.
5. Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “enhancing the versatility and applicability of data analysis across various chart types” on lines 3-4 is unclear on whether the limitation is referring to a term previously established in the claim or any parent claims, or if it is defining a new limitation. Examiner recommends amending the term to read “enhancing versatility and applicability of data analysis of data analysis across various chart types”. Appropriate correction is required.
6. Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the generation of hierarchical child groups” on line 1 is unclear on whether the limitation is referring to a limitation previously established in the claim or any parent claims, or if it is defining a new limitation. Examiner recommends amending the term to read “a generation of hierarchical child groups”. Appropriate correction is required.
7. Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “facilitating the organization of data into a multi-level structure that reflects complex data relationships” on lines 3-4 is unclear on whether the limitation is referring to a term previously established in the claim or any parent claims, or if it is defining a new limitation. Examiner recommends amending the term to read “facilitating an organization of data into a multi-level structure that reflects complex data relationships”. Appropriate correction is required.
8. Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a group’s defined range upon the activation of its unique marker” on lines 2-3 is unclear on whether the claim is establishing a new “group’s defined range” and a new “unique marker” limitation, or if those terms are referring to the “axis value group’s defined range” and “a unique marker” limitations that were previously established in claim 1. Additionally, it is unclear whether “the activation” is referring to a term previously established in the claim or any parent claims, or if it is defining a new limitation. Examiner recommends amending the term to read “the axis value group’s defined range upon an activation of the group’s unique marker”. Appropriate correction is required.
9. Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the collapsed range” on line 3 and 5 is unclear on whether the limitation is referring to “a collapsed group’s range” as previously defined in the claim, or if it is referring to a range established in a parent claim. Examiner recommends amending the limitation to read “the collapsed group’s range”. Appropriate correction is required.
10. Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “preserving the integrity of the original dataset” on line 9 is unclear on whether the limitation is referring to a term previously established in the claim or any parent claims, or if it is defining a new limitation. Examiner recommends amending the term to read “preserving integrity of the original dataset”. Appropriate correction is required.
11. Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “each group” on line 11 is unclear on what type of groups the term is referring to. Examiner recommends amending the term to read “each axis value group”. Appropriate correction is required.
12. Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: the term "altering between "expanded" and "collapsed" visual states" on lines 12-13 should not be in quotations, as it is unclear whether the claim is citing text from the specification, or if it is merely defining a limitation. Examiner recommends editing the term to read “altering between an expanded and a collapsed visual state”. Appropriate correction is required.
13. Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the group” on line 13 is unclear on what group the term is referring to. Examiner recommends amending the term to read “the axis value group”. Appropriate correction is required.
14. Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the method” on line 2 is unclear on whether the limitation is referring to a term previously established in the claim or any parent claims, or if it is defining a new limitation. Examiner recommends amending the term to read “a method” Appropriate correction is required.
15. Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “enhancing the versatility and applicability of data analysis across various chart types” on lines 3-4 is unclear on whether the limitation is referring to a term previously established in the claim or any parent claims, or if it is defining a new limitation. Examiner recommends amending the term to read “enhancing versatility and applicability of data analysis of data analysis across various chart types”. Appropriate correction is required.
16. Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the generation of hierarchical child groups” on line 1 is unclear on whether the limitation is referring to a limitation previously established in the claim or any parent claims, or if it is defining a new limitation. Examiner recommends amending the term to read “a generation of hierarchical child groups”. Appropriate correction is required.
17. Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “facilitating the organization of data into a multi-level structure that reflects complex data relationships” on lines 3-4 is unclear on whether the limitation is referring to a term previously established in the claim or any parent claims, or if it is defining a new limitation. Examiner recommends amending the term to read “facilitating an organization of data into a multi-level structure that reflects complex data relationships”. Appropriate correction is required.
18. Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a group’s defined range upon the activation of its unique marker” on lines 3-4 is unclear on whether the claim is establishing a new “group’s defined range” and a new “unique marker” limitation, or if those terms are referring to the “axis value group’s defined range” and “a unique marker” limitations that were previously established in claim 8. Additionally, it is unclear whether “the activation” is referring to a term previously established in the claim or any parent claims, or if it is defining a new limitation. Examiner recommends amending the term to read “the axis value group’s defined range upon an activation of the group’s unique marker”. Appropriate correction is required.
19. Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the collapsed range” on line 3 and 5 is unclear on whether the limitation is referring to “a collapsed group’s range” as previously defined in the claim, or if it is referring to a range established in a parent claim. Examiner recommends amending the limitation to read “the collapsed group’s range”. Appropriate correction is required.
20. Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “preserving the integrity of the original dataset” on line 9 is unclear on whether the limitation is referring to a term previously established in the claim or any parent claims, or if it is defining a new limitation. Examiner recommends amending the term to read “preserving integrity of the original dataset”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Claims 1, 6-7, 12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the axis line" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as this limitation is not previously established within the claim or any of its parent claims. It is unclear whether “the axis line” refers to the chosen axis, a line on the chosen axis, or another axis altogether. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “an axis line of the chosen axis”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the original data set" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as this limitation is not previously established within the claim or any of its parent claims. It is unclear whether “the original data set” refers specifically to the data points within the collapsed range, whether or not it also refers to data points located before and after the collapsed range, or if it is defining a new limitation of an original data set. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the data points within the collapsed range”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the axis line" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as this limitation is not previously established within the claim or any of its parent claims. It is unclear whether “the axis line” refers to the chosen axis, a line on the chosen axis, or another axis altogether. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “an axis line of the chosen axis”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the original data set" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as this limitation is not previously established within the claim or any of its parent claims. It is unclear whether “the original data set” refers specifically to the data points within the collapsed range, whether or not it also refers to data points located before and after the collapsed range, or if it is defining a new limitation of an original data set. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the data points within the collapsed range”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
24. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
25. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 7 recites: “A computer-readable storage medium”. However, the ordinary meaning of a computer readable medium known in the art covers forms of non-transitory mediums (CD-ROM, hard drives, etc.) and transitory mediums (propagating signals, etc.). Therefore claim 7 is not statutory for reciting a computer readable medium which covers both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. However, claim 7 may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by amending the claim to recite “A non-transitory computer readable medium for storing…”. Claims that recite nothing but the physical characteristics of a form of energy, such as a frequency, voltage, or the strength of a magnetic field, define energy or magnetism, per se, and as such are non-statutory natural phenomena. O’Reilly, 56 U.S. (15 How.) at 112-14. Moreover, it does not appear that a claim reciting a signal encoded with functional descriptive material falls within any of the categories of patentable subject matter set forth in § 101. First, a claimed signal is clearly not a “process” under § 101 because it is not a series of steps. The other three § 101 classes of machine, compositions of matter and manufactures "relate to structural entities and can be grouped as ‘product’ claims in order to contrast them with process claims." 1 D. Chisum, Patents § 1.02 (1994). The three product classes have traditionally required physical structure or material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. Claims 1-2, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomask (US 7233333 B2), hereinafter Lomask, in view of Baker (US 20120005045 A1), hereinafter Baker.
Regarding claim 1, Lomask teaches a method executed by a computer system for enhancing user interaction with and comprehension of graphical visualizations through interactive data grouping and axis folding, the method comprising steps of: generating and displaying an axis value group for the defined range on the selected axis, each group distinguished by a unique marker that denotes its value range and equipped with a toggle feature for altering between "expanded" and "collapsed" visual states of the group (Fig. 3, Col. 5 line 64 – Col. 6 line 14, wherein a selected region has a corresponding GUI button that can toggle between collapsing or rendering the region viewable, wherein the selected region is defined as a data value range along an axis and the GUI button is interpreted as a unique marker that denotes a specified value range); and dynamically updating the graphical visualization in response to user manipulation of the axis value groups (Fig. 3, Col. 5 line 66 – Col.6 line 8, wherein the region being collapsed or rendered viewable based on user input is interpreted as dynamically updating the graphical visualization in response to user manipulation), ensuring real-time reflection of data organization preferences.
Lomask does not teach initiating an interactive interface that allows a user to define a range of coordinate values along a chosen axis by either clicking and dragging across a designated area adjacent to the axis line to visually select the range or inputting specific coordinate values via standard input dialogs for precise selection.
Baker teaches initiating an interactive interface that allows a user to define a range of coordinate values along a chosen axis by either clicking and dragging across a designated area adjacent to the axis line to visually select the range (Fig. 8, paragraph 59, wherein a selected range of coordinate values can be highlighted by clicking and dragging across an area or axis of the graph, which is interpreted as a user defining a range of coordinate values along a chosen axis) or inputting specific coordinate values via standard input dialogs for precise selection (Fig. 8, paragraph 58, wherein range bars that a user can adjust the values of to select the viewable range of data points is interpreted as inputting specific coordinate values via standard input dialogs).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lomask with the teachings of Baker for this method of interactive data grouping. Lomask discusses allowing a way for users to select and omit irrelevant data from graphical representations though GUI controls, for the purposes of more efficiently collapse non-relevant data. Similarly, Baker discloses a method for better comparing multiple datasets together on a graph, by providing user controls for selecting and choosing which regions of a displayed graph to focus and zoom in on. Both references discuss ways for displaying datasets on a plotted graph, and both references discuss ways of selecting and choosing which areas or pieces of data to display. As both references discuss analogous art, it would have been obvious to combine them.
Regarding claim 2, Lomask in view of Baker discloses the method of claim 1. Additionally, Lomask teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising a capability for users to repetitively apply the method for data grouping across multiple axes within any active graphical visualization (Fig. 3, Col. 3 lines 36-51, wherein every section, region, and each graph as a whole can have GUI control to display or collapse sections of the graph, which is interpreted as the data grouping method being applicable across multiple axes and any active graphical visualizations), thereby enhancing the versatility and applicability of data analysis across various chart types.
Regarding claim 7, Lomask teaches a computer system comprising: a processor; and a computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon (Fig. 1, Col. 4 lines 15-23) which, when executed by a computer, cause the apparatus to perform operations comprising: generating and displaying an axis value group for the defined range on the selected axis, each group distinguished by a unique marker that denotes its value range and equipped with a toggle feature for altering between "expanded" and "collapsed" visual states of the group (Fig. 3, Col. 5 line 64 – Col. 6 line 14, wherein a selected region has a corresponding GUI button that can toggle between collapsing or rendering the region viewable, wherein the selected region is defined as a data value range along an axis and the GUI button is interpreted as a unique marker that denotes a specified value range); and dynamically updating the graphical visualization in response to user manipulation of the axis value groups (Fig. 3, Col. 5 line 66 – Col.6 line 8, wherein the region being collapsed or rendered viewable based on user input is interpreted as dynamically updating the graphical visualization in response to user manipulation), ensuring real-time reflection of data organization preferences.
Lomask does not teach initiating an interactive interface that allows a user to define a range of coordinate values along a chosen axis by either clicking and dragging across a designated area adjacent to the axis line to visually select the range or inputting specific coordinate values via standard input dialogs for precise selection.
Baker teaches initiating an interactive interface that allows a user to define a range of coordinate values along a chosen axis by either clicking and dragging across a designated area adjacent to the axis line to visually select the range (Fig. 8, paragraph 59, wherein a selected range of coordinate values can be highlighted by clicking and dragging across an area or axis of the graph, which is interpreted as a user defining a range of coordinate values along a chosen axis) or inputting specific coordinate values via standard input dialogs for precise selection (Fig. 8, paragraph 58, wherein range bars that a user can adjust the values of to select the viewable range of data points is interpreted as inputting specific coordinate values via standard input dialogs).
The motivation to combine would be the same as that set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Lomask in view of Baker discloses the system of claim 7. Additionally, Lomask teaches the system of claim 7, further comprising a capability for users to repetitively apply the method for data grouping across multiple axes within any active graphical visualization (Fig. 3, Col. 3 lines 36-51, wherein every section, region, and each graph as a whole can have GUI control to display or collapse sections of the graph, which is interpreted as the data grouping method being applicable across multiple axes and any active graphical visualizations), thereby enhancing the versatility and applicability of data analysis across various chart types.
29. Claims 3, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomask in view of Baker as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Cardno (US 20110184995 A1), hereinafter Cardno.
Regarding claim 3, Lomask in view of Baker discloses the method of claim 1. Additionally, Cardno teaches further incorporating the generation of hierarchical child groups when new coordinate value ranges intersect with existing groups (Fig. 9B-9C, paragraph 351, 353-355, wherein data groups are arranged in a hierarchical tree based on the statistical distance between data groups, which is interpreted as including arranging the hierarchical tree based on whether data group values intersect with existing data groups), thereby facilitating the organization of data into a multi-level structure that reflects complex data relationships and intersections more accurately (paragraph 316, 320, wherein the grouped data is used for data visualization and analysis).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lomask in view of Baker with the teachings of Cardno for this method for generating hierarchical child groups for interactive data grouping. Lomask discusses allowing a way for users to select and omit irrelevant data from graphical representations though GUI controls, for the purposes of more efficiently collapse non-relevant data. Similarly, Baker discloses a method for better comparing multiple datasets together on a graph, by providing user controls for selecting and choosing which regions of a displayed graph to focus and zoom in on. Both references discuss ways for displaying datasets on a plotted graph, and for selecting which data to be shown. Additionally, Cardno discusses creating a visual representation of data points from data, more specifically organizing and arranging data groups in a hierarchical data structure so that a viewer can see a more information dense view of the data in a visual representation. All three references discuss displaying visual representations of data, with Lomask and Baker pertaining to selecting what data to view, and Cardno pertaining to grouping and arranging the display of data. As all three references discuss analogous art for better displaying data to a user, it would be obvious to combine them.
Regarding claim 9, Lomask in view of Baker discloses the system of claim 7. Additionally, Cardno teaches further incorporating the generation of hierarchical child groups when new coordinate value ranges intersect with existing groups (Fig. 9B-9C, paragraph 351, 353-355, wherein data groups are arranged in a hierarchical tree based on the statistical distance between data groups, which is interpreted as including arranging the hierarchical tree based on whether data group values intersect with existing data groups), thereby facilitating the organization of data into a multi-level structure that reflects complex data relationships and intersections more accurately (paragraph 316, 320, wherein the grouped data is used for data visualization and analysis).
The motivation to combine would be the same as that set forth for claim 3.
30. Claims 4-5, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomask in view of Baker as applied to claims 1, 7 above, and further in view of Moore (US 20170109400 A1), hereinafter Moore.
Regarding claim 4, Lomask in view of Baker discloses the method of claim 1. Additionally, Lomask teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the dynamic updating mechanism includes: an activatable unique marker (Fig. 3, Col. 5 line 64 – Col. 6 line 14, wherein a selected region has a corresponding GUI button that can toggle between collapsing or rendering the region viewable based on a user input, which is interpreted as a unique marker than can be activated); and adjusting the graphical visualization to accurately depict the selected group’s data points in either an expanded or collapsed state, based on the user’s toggle interaction (Fig. 3, Col. 5 line 66 – Col.6 line 8, wherein the region being switched between a collapsed or rendered viewable based on user input on a GUI button is interpreted as dynamically updating the graphical visualization in response to a user’s toggle interaction).
Lomask and Baker do not teach selecting and highlighting data points within a group’s defined range.
Moore teaches selecting and highlighting data points within a group’s defined range (Fig. 6, paragraph 73, wherein data groups are selectable, and upon a user input selecting the data group can restructure the graph to only show the data in the selected group, which is interpreted as highlighting data points within a group’s defined range upon user input).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lomask in view of Baker with the teachings of Moore for this method of interactive data grouping and collapsing. Lomask discusses allowing a way for users to select and omit irrelevant data from graphical representations though GUI controls, for the purposes of more efficiently collapse non-relevant data. Similarly, Baker discloses a method for better comparing multiple datasets together on a graph, by providing user controls for selecting and choosing which regions of a displayed graph to focus and zoom in on. Additionally, Moore discloses a system for displaying multiple groups of data on a graphical representation, allowing users to easily compare groups of data and sort which data group to display or hide. As each reference discloses a method for organizing which data to display or hide in a graphical representation, it would be obvious to combine them.
Regarding claim 5, Lomask in view of Baker and Moore discloses the method of claim 4. Additionally, Lomask teaches the method of claim 4, wherein transitioning an axis value group to its collapsed state results in a condensed visualization along the affected axis by omitting the specified range from the display (Fig. 3, Col. 5 line 66 – Col.6 line 8, wherein the graph region can be toggled between being collapsed or rendered viewable, wherein the graph region being collapsed is defined as omitting the graph region and its data from being displayed), thereby simplifying the visualization by hiding all data points within the collapsed range for streamlined analysis.
Regarding claim 10, Lomask in view of Baker discloses the system of claim 7. Additionally, Lomask teaches the computer system of claim 7, wherein the dynamic updating mechanism includes: an activatable unique marker (Fig. 3, Col. 5 line 64 – Col. 6 line 14, wherein a selected region has a corresponding GUI button that can toggle between collapsing or rendering the region viewable based on a user input, which is interpreted as a unique marker than can be activated); and adjusting the graphical visualization to accurately depict the selected group’s data points in either an expanded or collapsed state, based on the user’s toggle interaction (Fig. 3, Col. 5 line 66 – Col.6 line 8, wherein the region being switched between a collapsed or rendered viewable based on user input on a GUI button is interpreted as dynamically updating the graphical visualization in response to a user’s toggle interaction).
Lomask and Baker do not teach selecting and highlighting data points within a group’s defined range.
Moore teaches selecting and highlighting data points within a group’s defined range (Fig. 6, paragraph 73, wherein data groups are selectable, and upon a user input selecting the data group can restructure the graph to only show the data in the selected group, which is interpreted as highlighting data points within a group’s defined range upon user input).
The motivation to combine would be the same as that set forth for claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, Lomask in view of Baker and Moore discloses the system of claim 10. Additionally, Lomask teaches the computer system of claim 10, wherein transitioning an axis value group to its collapsed state results in a condensed visualization along the affected axis by omitting the specified range from the display (Fig. 3, Col. 5 line 66 – Col.6 line 8, wherein the graph region can be toggled between being collapsed or rendered viewable, wherein the graph region being collapsed is defined as omitting the graph region and its data from being displayed), thereby simplifying the visualization by hiding all data points within the collapsed range for streamlined analysis.
Conclusion
31. A glossary of terms used in this action can be found on the USPTO website at:
http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/glossary#
When responding to this action, please keep the following in mind:
A proper reply requires a specific format for any amendments. A USPTO Sample Reply to Office actions can be found at: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/formatrevamdtprac.pdf
Also, please see MPEP 714(II)(C) for additional guidance on making a proper amendment to the claims. Applicant is urged to follow proper amendment practice to avoid any delays in prosecution.
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
All amendments of the drawings or specification, and all additions thereto must not include new matter beyond the original disclosure. Matter not found in either, involving a departure from or an addition to the original disclosure, cannot be added to the application even if supported by a supplemental oath or declaration, and can be shown or claimed only in a separate application.
Pay close attention to any time periods for response and fees set forth in this action. Fees and time periods cannot be waived.
All formal replies to Office Actions must be submitted via:
Mail (including this form: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/forms/sb0092.pdf),
Fax (including this form: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/forms/sb0097.pdf) or
EFS web. Formal replies cannot be submitted via e-mail.
Sign all submissions (on the last page). Please note that a proper s- signature requires Applicant’s name within forward slashes and the signer’s name must be:
(A) Presented in printed or typed form preferably immediately below or adjacent the S-signature, and
(B) Reasonably specific enough so that the identity of the signer can be readily recognized.
For example:
PNG
media_image1.png
80
108
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
77
145
media_image2.png
Greyscale
32. The USPTO understands Internet E-mail communications may be more convenient for the applicants, however, communication via Internet e-mail proses risks to information confidentiality. The USPTO will NOT respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122 without a signed written authorization by applicant in place.
For the applicant’s convenience, the examiner has included the following template for authorizing email communications with the examiner if email communication is preferred to telephonic communication. Please note that the authorization must be submitted via mail, facsimile, or EFS-Web (i.e., it cannot be emailed to the examiner):
________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Application Number:
Filing Date:
Title:
Examiner Name: XXXX
Art Unit: XXXX
* * * * * * * * * *
Date:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
AUTHORIZATION FOR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION
Sir:
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I/we hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me/us concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I/We understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Respectfully submitted,
By: ______________________________________
Printed Name:
Email Address:
________________________________________________________________________
33. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN W YICK whose telephone number is (571)272-4063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Said Broome can be reached at (571) 272-2931. 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.
/JORDAN WAN YICK/Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612