DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/12/2015 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Clam 18 is canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 15, and 19-20 are currently amended.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are currently pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 is/are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites (additional elements underlined):
An information processing method performed by a computer device, the method comprising:
receiving a sharing operation for information in an information page, the information comprising an object to be pushed;
obtaining a point-of-interest (POI) corresponding to the information using a trained neural network recognition model based on a neural network;
performing location recognition to obtain a geographical location associated with the information;
obtaining, from a server, a pre-stored reference POI for a merchant within a location area corresponding to the geographical location associated with the information;
determining that the information comprises the reference POI in response to a matching degree between the POI and the reference POI exceeding a threshold, wherein the object to be pushed comprises the reference POI;
in response to the sharing operation, presenting a sharing setting interface, the haring setting interface comprising a plurality of selectable sharing modes including a first sharing mode and a sharing push mode, the first sharing mode being associated with presentation of the information without presenting push information associated with the object, the sharing push mode being associated with presentation of the information and the push information associated with the object;
receiving, from a user, a selection of one of the plurality of selectable sharing modes; and
in response to the user selecting the sharing push mode:
presenting the push information associated with the object, the push information comprising merchant information for the merchant associated with the reference POI; and
sharing the information in response to a confirmation instruction for the push information, and wherein a corresponding sharing page comprising a presentation of the information and a push portal corresponding to the push information.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified below, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth an advertising/marketing activity. Advertising/marketing fall within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because advertising is related to commerce and economy, a commercial interaction (e.g., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
In Step 2A Prong Two, these additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, now in MPEP 2106). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) (Step 2B, No).
Claims 2-18 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of “wherein the information page is a chat page” and “in the chat page”. Claim 3 recites the additional element of “in an information page”. Claim 5 recites the additional element of “page”. Claim 6 recites the additional element of “machine learning”. Claim 7 recites the additional elements of “the push portal”, “corresponding sharing page comprises”, and “in a corresponding sharing page”. Claim 9 recites the additional elements of “redirecting the page to a push information page”, “page”, “and the push portal”, “corresponding sharing page comprises” and “in a corresponding sharing page”. Claim 10 recites the additional elements of “page” and “a terminal”. Claim 11 recites the additional elements of “page”, “the push portal”, and “in a corresponding sharing page comprises”. Claim 15 recites the additional element of “a push portal”. Claim 16 recites the additional elements of ‘”interactive prompt”, “in the sharing page”, “of an interactive object”, and “the interactive object is an object that interacts with the push information through the push portal”. Claim 17 recites the additional elements of “prompt” and “prompting”. However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 4, 8, and 12-14 do not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claims 4, 8, and 12-14 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 19 recites (additional elements underlined):
An information processing apparatus, comprising:
a memory, configured to store executable instructions; and
a processor, configured to implement:
receiving a sharing operation for information in an information page, the information comprising an object to be pushed;
obtaining a point-of-interest (POI) corresponding to the information using a trained neural network recognition model based on a neural network;
performing location recognition to obtain a geographical location associated with the information;
obtaining, from the server, a pre-stored reference POI for a merchant within a location area corresponding to the geographical location associated with the information;
determining that the information comprises the reference POI in response to a matching degree between the POI and the reference POI exceeding a threshold, wherein the object to be pushed comprises the reference POI;
in response to the sharing operation, presenting a sharing setting interface, the sharing setting interface comprising a plurality of selectable sharing modes including a first sharing mode and a sharing push mode, the first sharing mode being associated with presentation of the information without presenting push information associated with the object, the sharing psuh mode being associated with presentation of the information and the push information associated with the object;
receiving, from a user, a selection of one of the plurality of selectable sharing modes; and
in response to the user selecting the sharing push mode:
presenting the push information associated with the object; and
sharing the information in response to a confirmation instruction for the push information, and wherein a corresponding sharing page comprises a presentation of the information and a push portal corresponding to the push information.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 19 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity). For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, the additional elements in claim 19 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 20 recites (additional elements underlined):
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing executable instructions, the executable instructions, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to perform:
receiving a sharing operation for information in an information page, the information comprising an object to be pushed;
obtaining a point-of-interest (POI) corresponding to the information using a trained neural network recognition model based on a neural network;
performing location recognition to obtain a geographical location associated with the information;
obtaining, from a server, a pre-stored reference POI for a merchant within a location area corresponding to the geographical location associated with the information;
determining that the information comprises the reference POI in response to a matching degree between the POI and the reference POI exceeding a threshold, wherein the object to be pushed comprises the reference POI;
in response to the sharing operation, presenting a sharing setting interface, the sharing setting interface comprising a plurality of selectable sharing modes including a first sharing mode and a sharing push mode, the first sharing mode being associated with presentation of the information without presenting push information associated with the object, the sharing push mode being associated with presentation of the information and the push information associated with the object;
receiving, from a user, a selection of one of the plurality of selectable sharing modes; and
in response to the user selecting the sharing push mode:
presenting the push information associated with the object; and
sharing the information in response to a confirmation instruction for the push information, and wherein a corresponding sharing page comprises a presentation of the information and a push portal corresponding to the push information.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 20 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity). For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, the additional elements in claim 20 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after an exhaustive search on the claims as currently amended, the claims currently overcome prior art. While the prior art teach some of the elements of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have arrived at Applicant’s claimed invention unless one was using Applicant’s claims and specification as a roadmap, thus using impermissible hindsight. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Systrom et al. (US 2014/0279039 A1) discloses a system and method for selectively advertising items in an image including: loading an image to a social feed; receiving a first tag and a second tag including identification of a first item and a second item visible in the image, respectively; based on the first tag and the second tag, correlating the first item with a first product and the second item with the second product; based on the first product and the second product, sourcing a first link to a first electronic storefront and a second link to a second electronic storefront that facilitate purchase of the first product and the second product, respectively; and selectively displaying a first visual cue of the first link and a second visual cue of the second link to a first user and to a second user, respectively, according to demographics of the first user and the second user. Systrom et al. also discloses the use of machine learning techniques to automatically identify a product or brand represented in an image, and using a user’s location to identify a retail outlet of a merchant proximal to a user. However, Systrom et al. does not obtain a point-of-interest (POI) corresponding to the information using a trained neural network recognition model based on a neural network; perform location recognition to obtain a geographical location associated with the information; obtain, from a server, a pre-stored reference POI for a merchant within a location area corresponding to the geographical location associated with the information; determining that the information comprises the reference POI in response to a matching degree between the POI and the reference POI exceeding a threshold, wherein the object to be pushed comprises the reference POI as claimed.
Glazier et al. (US 2020/0242648 A1) discloses a system that enables a user to share a referral link to content obtained from the user interface of an application user is using. When recipient uses the link (for example by purchasing a product), user who shared the link may receive a commission. System may monitor an application user interface, by subscribing to events broadcast by the operating system when the user interface changes. For a web browser, the system may analyze events to extract the URL of the page being browsed, and compare this URL to a database of merchants or services that support referrals. When the URL matches a database entry, the system may present a sharing menu that allows the user to share a referral link via email, text, social media, or other sharing service. The user may also be able to use the referral link directly to receive a credit for his or her own purchase. However, Glazier et al. does not perform location recognition to obtain a geographical location associated with the information; obtaining, from a server, a pre-stored reference POI for a merchant within a location area corresponding to the geographical location associated with the information; and determining that the information comprises the reference POI in response to a matching degree between the POI and the reference POI exceeding a threshold, wherein the object to be pushed comprises the reference POI as claimed.
Tort (US 2018/0158089 A1) discloses systems and methods for the identification, tracking and rewarding of natural, organic and authentic social media digital branded content by influencers, and particularly of Nano-influencers. Monitoring and rewarding mechanisms and criteria are based on a selected subject-matter, so that the analysis permits quantification of influencers and takes into account the desire of promoters to have their areas of influence commented on social media. In one aspect the invention is about a method for tracking and rewarding social media influencers, said method comprising capturing by the camera of an electronic computing device an image, with the electronic computing device ensuring the capture of available geolocation and/or time information, and user comments and input, manual or automated including recognition of content, brand(s) and/or persons in image, uploading said image to one or more SELFEE server computing devices, wherein said images are checked for appropriate content, manual or automated recognition of brand(s) logo/products/people, correct time/place and approval for reward tracking, posting said images to one or more social media networks, tracking replies to user posted images in one or more social media networks and calculating rewards per user; and remitting rewards to users. In another aspect, the computing device camera is under the explicit control of the SELFEE application on said computing device. In yet another aspect, images having one or more person(s) besides the user in them are not approved by the SELFEE system for reward tracking until said one or more person(s) authorize their use to the SELFEE system. While Tort discloses the use of machine learning to analyze images (¶ 71), Tort does not disclose the use of a trained neural network recognition model to obtain a POI corresponding to the information as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Argument A: “Amended claim 1 does not recite a judicial exception. Properly characterized, the claim addresses a specific computer-implemented solution for enriching shared content by automatically identifying a point of interest (POI) in user media with a trained neural network, correlating that POI to a reference POI of a merchant using location recognition and a confidence threshold, and generating a sharing page that includes an interactive push portal tied to that recognized object. The focus is a concrete improvement in how computers process and present image-based content, not a fundamental economic practice or a mental process. Humans cannot carry out the recited neural-network inference, geo-based correlation to server-stored reference POIs, or thresholded matching in their minds.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, “eligibility should not be evaluated based on whether the claim recites a ‘useful, concrete, and tangible result’” (MPEP 2106(I)). Second, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). Third, the limitations outlined above also describe or set forth an advertising/marketing activity, which falls within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims do recite a mental process and certain method of organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One.
Argument B: “As in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (self-referential database), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc. 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (automated animation rules), and Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (improved memory system), amended claim 1 is rooted in a particular technological solution and is not directed to an abstract idea. The USPTO PEG and examples are consistent: the neural network-based image recognition recited here is a computer-centric technique rather than a mental step, and Example 39 recognizes machine learning (ML) image analysis as a technological implementation rather than an abstract mathematical concept. … Even if amended claim 1 were viewed as reciting an abstract idea at some level of generality, the additional elements integrate any such idea into a practical application. The claim recites a specific pipeline: a trained neural network identifies a POI in image or video content; location recognition determines a geographic context; the system retrieves a pre-stored merchant reference POI constrained by that location; a matching-degree threshold governs whether the POI is deemed the merchant's reference POI; and, only upon that determination and the user's selection of a sharing push mode, the system generates and shares a page that contains a push portal presenting merchant information. These operations meaningfully limit any alleged abstraction to a concrete technical implementation that improves how social/content-sharing systems function. The computer does not merely display the result of analysis; it uses recognition outputs to alter the behavior of the system and user interface in a content-aware way by embedding an interactive portal anchored to the recognized object. This is the sort of improvement to computer functionality that the Federal Circuit has found to be a practical application, including Enfish and McRO. It also parallels the reasoning in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), where claims were eligible because they solved an Internet-centric problem through a specific web architecture. The Step 2A, Prong Two factors favor eligibility in circumstances like these, where the claim applies a putative concept through particularized image processing, location services, thresholding logic, client-server coordination, and interface generation that together improve the technological process of sharing rich, context-aware content.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, unlike in Enfish in which the claimed invention achieved other benefits over conventional databases such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements that provided improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, here looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improve any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Second, unlike in McRO in which the claimed invention allowed computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expression in animated characters that previously could only be performed by human animators which provided an improvement to an existing technological process, here looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improve any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. “It is the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that ‘improved [the] existing technological process’ by allowing the automation of further tasks” (see p. 24 of McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The specification here fails to provide a teaching about how the claimed invention improves a computer or other technology, nor do the claims recite a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome defined by the claimed invention. The claims merely use the computer as a tool instead of an improved computer capability.
Third, unlike the improvement to computer memory systems in Visual Memory, here looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improve any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. The specification here fails to describe how the claimed invention improves the functioning of the computer itself.
Fourth, unlike the claimed invention in Example 39 which did not recite an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One, and provided an improvement to machine learning itself, here the use of machine learning and neural network is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to adding the words “apply it”. The machine learning and neural network here is merely used as a tool, in its ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The Federal Circuit in Recentive Analytics Inc. v. Fox Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2025) held that claims that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101 (see p. 18).
Fifth, unlike in DDR in which the claimed invention solved the business challenge of retaining website visitors that is particular to the Internet, here the claimed invention amounts to merely reciting the performance of a business practice (e.g., marketing/advertising) along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. The claimed invention here is not necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. “We caution, however, that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent” (see p. 22 of DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Argument D: “Amended claim 1 also recites an inventive concept. The Examiner's characterization of the additional elements as generic computer functions overlooks the non-conventional ordered combination. A trained neural network is used for image-based POI recognition in the sharing context; server-side logic correlates the detected POI to a merchant's reference POI constrained by geography; a matching-degree threshold governs when to treat the POI as belonging to the merchant; and the system produces a sharing page with an interactive push portal associated with the recognized object. That arrangement is not shown to be well-understood, routine, or conventional. Under Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), whether elements or their combination are routine is a factual issue that requires evidence, and conclusory assertions are insufficient. The Office has cited no evidence that social content systems conventionally performed this AI-driven, geo-gated, thresholded matching to merchant reference POIs and then generated a content-aware interactive portal as part of the sharing flow. As in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&TMobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), even when individual building blocks are known, a particular, non-conventional arrangement can supply the inventive concept. The present combination improves accuracy and user experience by reducing manual tagging, preventing spurious associations through thresholding, and delivering an anchored, interactive overlay that changes how the computer generates and positions information in the shared page. The PEG likewise recognizes that using a ML model and sensor or location inputs to control downstream computer operations, and to improve the interface or system behavior, can satisfy Step 2B.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike in Bascom in which the particular arrangement of known elements provided a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering content, here looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. The claims at issue do not require any non-conventional computer, network or display components, or even a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces. The claims at issue merely call for the performance of the claimed invention on a set of generic computer components and display devices.
With regard to the argument of providing evidence in view of Berkheimer, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Office Action does not take the position that any of the additional elements amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two that would warrant analysis in Step 2B to determine if the additional element also amounts to simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, now in MPEP 2106). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Therefore, the claims as currently amended still do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM REFAI whose telephone number is (313)446-4822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on 571-270-3948. 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.
/SAM REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621