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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/8/2026 has been entered.
Status
This action is in response to the arguments filed on 6/8/2026. Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 1, 8, 15, are amended. No claims have been added. No claims have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued “As amended, Claim 1 is not directed to a mental process. The claim now expressly requires computational generation of traversal cost values between pairs of nodes in a directed node hierarchy using direction-dependent traversal weights, normalization of traversal costs using longest traversal paths across the node hierarchy to generate bounded similarity metrics, and generation of weighted composite scores combining traversal-based similarity metrics with category transition data collected from multiple user computing devices during streaming playback. These operations are not practically performable in the human mind or with pen and paper. The claimed processing requires machine-implemented graph traversal computation across node pairs, normalization operations over the graph structure, and dynamic weighted scoring used to control selective streaming and playlist generation in a distributed streaming environment.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendment adds computational details to the abstract idea; it does not remove the claim from the mental process and mathematical concept groupings. Assigning a traversal cost that varies by direction, dividing a cost by the longest path into a tree to normalize it to a value between zero and one, and combining two or more numeric metrics in a weighted sum are all steps of collecting, evaluating, and correlating data using mathematical operations. This is something a human with pen and paper could do given the same node hierarchy and data records. A claim reciting steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, remains in the mental process grouping. Adding specific formulas to an abstract idea does not convert it into something other than an abstract idea. Applicant’s claims are similar to Electric Power Group where the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to collecting, analyzing, and using data even when performed by a computer, remain directed to an abstract idea because the advance they purpose to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content and then displaying the result. Similarly applicant’s claims that happen in a streaming environment using machine implemented graph traversal does not remove the claim from the abstract-idea groupings. Per MPEP 2106.5(h), merely linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment tor field of use is not itself sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application. The additional generic hardware limitations “one or more computing devices,” “a user computing device,” a digital pointer and the streaming content are the same type of limitations that MPEP 2106.05(h) addresses.
The applicant has argued “The Office Action's second bucket ("organizing human activity") is also wrong. The claims are not directed to organizing human activity such as fundamental economic practices, interpersonal interactions, or social behaviors. Instead, the claims are directed to controlling video streaming behavior using a hierarchical node-based data model and traversal metrics derived from user interaction data. Any involvement of users is incidental data input, not the focus of the invention. As in McRO v. Bandai, the claims recite a specific, technology-based process that uses data-driven rules to produce an improved technical result, rather than merely automating human activity.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The step of collecting interaction data across multiple users during playback is tracking how humans interact. The step of selectively streaming video content based on traversal data is a method of coordinating content delivery to a human user based on received user patterns. The step of generating and transmitting playlists of digital media access pointers is structuring and distributing resources for human use. The invention is tracking humans interactions with media, using that information to guide decisions, and structuring the flow of digital content to users. The claims are directed to managing user interactions and guiding a media selection which falls within methods of organizing human activity.
The applicant has argued “Further, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The amended claims recite a specific implementation for controlling streaming selection using graph- based traversal computations and weighted composite scoring derived from directed node traversal paths and category-transition interaction data. In particular, the claims recite: directed traversal-path computations within a node hierarchy, asymmetric traversal weighting based on traversal direction, normalization of traversal costs using longest-path graph computations, generation of bounded similarity metrics, and weighted composite scoring used to control selective streaming and playlist generation. These limitations are tied directly to operation of the streaming system itself and are not merely the use of generic computers as tools to perform generalized data analysis..” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The practical application inquiry considers only the additional elements of the claim beyond the identified judicial exception, it does not consider limitations that are themselves part of the abstract idea. Each of the limitations that the applicant has listed (the traversal path computations, the asymmetric traversal weighting, the longest path normalization, the bounded similarity metric, and the weighted composite score) are all a mathematical calculation or data analysis step performed on the node hierarchy and the collected interaction data. These are limitations that place the claim in the mathematical concept and mental process groupings. The applicant cannot rely on the abstract idea’s own limitations to establish that the abstract idea has been integrated into a practical application. The only elements of claim 1 that fall outside the identified abstract idea are the generic computer components (one or more computing devices, a user computing device, user computing devices, and the video file streaming context). These elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, they are merely using a computer as a tool to perform the steps of the abstract idea (compute traversal costs, normalize them, and combine them with interaction data into a score). This does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, regardless of how specifically the underlying mathematical operations are claimed. The claims here to not improve the functioning of the computer system, the computing devices, or the network itself. No limitation recites any changes to how content is stored, transmitted, cached, or delivered that would reduce latency, bandwidth, or storage, or processing burden relative to conventional streaming architectures. The specification also does not describe any such improvement to the computer or network, it merely describes a more sophisticated method of scoring and selecting which content to recommend, which is an improvement to the abstract idea’s output, not to the technology executing it. Applicant’s specification does not sufficiently describe how the claimed steps provide a specific technical improvement in the computer itself. Therefore there is no support to demonstrate that this would be a technical solution. Unlike Enfish the claimed invention does not improve the computer system itself. The claimed invention implements an abstract idea on a generic computing device.
The applicant has argued “Even assuming, arguendo, that the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims include significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The ordered combination of directed graph traversal computation, direction-dependent traversal weighting, graph normalization using longest-path traversal computation, and weighted composite scoring tied to streaming playlist generation provides a specific technical implementation that is neither conventional nor generic.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The directed graph traversal computation, direction-dependent traversal weighting, longest-path normalization, and the weighted composite scoring are directed to an abstract idea, not an additional element. Under 2B, the significantly more inquiry looks to whether the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept, it does not permit the abstract idea’s own steps to be combined with each other to become significantly more. The only elements that remain once the abstract idea is set aside are generic computer components performing the steps of collecting data, computing a value, and transmitting a file list. Receiving and transmitting data over a network, storing and retrieving data, and performing calculations using a general purpose processor are not identified as significantly more under MPEP 2106. The applicant has not identified, nor does the specification describe any unconventional arrangement of the generic hardware elements themselves. Applicant’s assertion that the claimed limitations are neither conventional or generic is unsupported attorney argument. The applicant has not pointed to the specification or other evidence of record. Looking to applicant’s specification the claim limitations are carried out by conventional general purpose computers, servers, memory, and network components.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. The previous 101 rejection is maintained and updated below.
The applicant has amended the claims to overcome the previous prior art rejections. The closest prior art of record is Eksombatchai et al. (US 10671672 B1) which discloses how content recommendations may be determined by a recommendation service running a plurality of random walks through a node graph and tracking the nodes visited by the plurality of random walk and Lewis et al. (US 11062358 B1) which discloses providing an advertisement associated with a media item appearing in a feed based on user engagement with the media item. The most relevant prior art does not specifically teach traversal in a first direction between a first node and a second node is associated with a first traversal weight and traversal in a second direction opposite the first direction is associated with a second traversal weight different from the first traversal weight… generating, by the one or more computing devices, for the pairs of nodes in the node hierarchy, a normalized similarity metric based on the traversal cost values, wherein the traversal cost values are normalized using a longest traversal path between nodes in the node hierarchy such that the similarity metric is bounded within a range between zero and one… a weighted composite score for pairs of nodes in the node hierarchy, wherein the weighted composite score is generated as a linear combination of (i) the normalized similarity metric based on traversal cost values and (ii) the category transition data; wherein weights applied in the linear combination are based on at least one of administrator configuration ,machine-learned optimization, or time-based decay of historical transition data… responsive to receiving, from a user computing device, a request for accessing a specific video content selecting based at least in part on the weighted composite score a set of selected video contents from among the plurality of video contents, wherein the selected video contents include the specific video content and one or more other selected video contents. “ The rejection is not withdrawn due to one claim limitation but the combination of the claimed elements. Further there would be no proper motivation to combine the references, as it would lead to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention using improper hindsight.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 8-14 are directed to a system, and claims 15-21 are directed to a media. Therefore, claims 1-21 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 8, 15, recite selecting a set of video content constituting an abstract idea based on “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” related to managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals including social activities, “Mental Process” related to judgements that can practically be performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pen and paper, and “Mathematical Concepts” related to mathematical calculations.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations including “identifying, … for each video content in a plurality of video contents, that the video content belongs to a respective video content category of video contents represented by a respective node in a plurality of nodes that form a node hierarchy; assigning, …, traversal cost values pairs of nodes in the node hierarchy, wherein the traversal cost values are determined based on directed traversal paths between nodes such that traversal in a first direction between a first node and a second node is associated with a first traversal weight and traversal in a second direction opposite the first direction is associated with a second traversal weight different from the first traversal weight; generating…for the pairs of nodes in the node hierarchy, a normalized similarity metric based on the traversal cost values, wherein the traversal cost values are normalized using a longest traversal path between nodes in the node hierarchy such that the similarity metric is bounded within a range between zero and one; selectively streaming… the plurality of video contents based at least in part on the normalized similarity metric to … for a plurality of users to play back; collecting…, user interaction data between the plurality of users … while the plurality of video contents is being played back; generating …category transition data based on the collected user interaction data; computing… a weighted composite score for pairs of nodes in the node hierarchy, wherein the weighted composite score is generated as a linear combination of (i) the normalized similarity metric based on traversal cost values and (ii) the category transition data; wherein weights applied in the linear combination are based on at least one of administrator configuration, machine-learned optimization, or time-based decay of historical transition data; responsive to receiving… a request for accessing a specific video content, selecting based at least in part on the weighted composite score a set of selected video contents from among the plurality of video contents, wherein the selected video contents include the specific video content and one or more other selected video contents; sending… a video content playlist comprising digital media access pointers for accessing the set of selected video contents; causing … to use the video content playlist to present the one or more additional video contents in the set of selected video contents for continued engagement …” Claim 8 recites abstract limitations including “a system, comprising: … identifying, … for each video content in a plurality of video contents, that the video content belongs to a respective video content category of video contents represented by a respective node in a plurality of nodes that form a node hierarchy; assigning… traversal cost values pairs of nodes in the node hierarchy, wherein the traversal cost values are determined based on directed traversal paths between nodes such that traversal in a first direction between a first node and a second node is associated with a first traversal weight and traversal in a second direction opposite the first direction is associated with a second traversal weight different from the first traversal weight; generating, … for the pairs of nodes in the node hierarchy, a normalized similarity metric based on the traversal cost values, wherein the traversal cost values are normalized using a longest traversal path between nodes in the node hierarchy such that the similarity metric is bounded within a range between zero and one; selectively streaming… the plurality of video contents based at least in part on the normalized similarity metric to … for a plurality of users to play back; collecting… user interaction data between the plurality of users … while the plurality of video contents is being played back; generating …, category transition data based on the collected user interaction data; computing, …, a weighted composite score for pairs of nodes in the node hierarchy, wherein the weighted composite score is generated as a linear combination of (i) the normalized similarity metric based on traversal cost values and (ii) the category transition data; wherein weights applied in the linear combination are based on at least one of administrator configuration, machine-learned optimization, or time- based decay of historical transition data; responsive to receiving, …, a request for accessing a specific video content selecting based at least in part on the weighted composite score a set of selected video contents from among the plurality of video contents, wherein the selected video contents include the specific video content and one or more other selected video contents; sending, …, a video content playlist comprising digital media access pointers for accessing the set of selected video contents, computing device; causing … to use the video content playlist to present the one or more additional video contents in the set of selected video contents for continued engagement …” Claim 15 recites abstract limitations including “… identifying, … for each video content in a plurality of video contents, that the video content belongs to a respective video content category of video contents represented by a respective node in a plurality of nodes that form a node hierarchy; assigning… traversal cost values pairs of nodes in the node hierarchy, wherein the traversal cost values are determined based on directed traversal paths between nodes such that traversal in a first direction between a first node and a second node is associated with a first traversal weight and traversal in a second direction opposite the first direction is associated with a second traversal weight different from the first traversal weight; generating, … for the pairs of nodes in the node hierarchy, a normalized similarity metric based on the traversal cost values, wherein the traversal cost values are normalized using a longest traversal path between nodes in the node hierarchy such that the similarity metric is bounded within a range between zero and one; selectively streaming… the plurality of video contents based at least in part on the normalized similarity metric to … for a plurality of users to play back; collecting… user interaction data between the plurality of users … while the plurality of video contents is being played back; generating …, category transition data based on the collected user interaction data; computing, …, a weighted composite score for pairs of nodes in the node hierarchy, wherein the weighted composite score is generated as a linear combination of (i) the normalized similarity metric based on traversal cost values and (ii) the category transition data; wherein weights applied in the linear combination are based on at least one of administrator configuration, machine-learned optimization, or time- based decay of historical transition data; responsive to receiving, …, a request for accessing a specific video content selecting based at least in part on the weighted composite score a set of selected video contents from among the plurality of video contents, wherein the selected video contents include the specific video content and one or more other selected video contents; sending, …, a video content playlist comprising digital media access pointers for accessing the set of selected video contents, computing device; causing … to use the video content playlist to present the one or more additional video contents in the set of selected video contents for continued engagement …” These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the language of “computing device”, “one or more processors,” covers an abstract idea but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors,” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being interpreted as an abstract idea. For example, with the exception of the “using the at least one processor” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass an abstract idea directed to a “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concepts.” Specifically, determining a cost or distance between two categories based on the relationship in a hierarchy, tracking a users movement, normalizing that value, combining two or more numeric values in a weighted sum to rank or select among options are observations, evaluations, and judgements that can practically be performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pen and paper, and are also mathematical calculations. The claims are additionally directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.” Specifically, using observed category-transition behavior across users to decide what content to recommend to a viewing user, and structuring the result into an ordered playlist, involving managing personal behavior and tailoring the delivery of content to an individual.
Dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16, 19-21, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, 18, will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 8, 15, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is a method comprising “one or more computing devices…a plurality of user computing devices… digital media access pointer.” Claim 8 is a system that recites limitations performed “one or more computing processors; one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing a program of instructions that is executable by the one or more computing processors to perform… one or more computing devices…a plurality of user computing devices… digital media access pointer.” Claim 15 is a media that recites limitations performed “One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, storing one or more sequences of instructions, which when executed by one or more processors… one or more computing devices…a plurality of user computing devices… digital media access pointer.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to collect, generate, select, and send data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16, 19-21 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 3, 10, 17, introduces the additional element of “a randomized data generator.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 4, 11, 18, introduces the additional element of “wherein at least one of the one or more weights is determined by applying machine learning to the collected user interaction data.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 8, 15 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Claim 1 is a method comprising “one or more computing devices…a plurality of user computing devices… digital media access pointer.” Claim 8 is a system that recites limitations performed “one or more computing processors; one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing a program of instructions that is executable by the one or more computing processors to perform… one or more computing devices…a plurality of user computing devices… digital media access pointer.” Claim 15 is a media that recites limitations performed “One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, storing one or more sequences of instructions, which when executed by one or more processors… one or more computing devices…a plurality of user computing devices… digital media access pointer.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g. to collect, generate, select, and send data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16, 19-21, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 3, 10, 17, introduces the additional element of “a randomized data generator.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 4, 11, 18, introduces the additional element of “wherein at least one of the one or more weights is determined by applying machine learning to the collected user interaction data.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, 15, recites the limitation “the one or more additional video contents.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 9, 16, recites the limitation “a respective individual traversal data value in the plurality of individual traversal data values.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3, 10, 17, recites the limitation “a respective individual traversal data value in the plurality of individual traversal data values.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7, 14, 21, recites the limitation “the plurality of individual traversal data values.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claims that depend from a previously rejected claim inherit the rejection.
Other pertinent prior art includes Nair et al. (US 20110161409 A1), which discloses directed graph hierarchies. Mukhopadhyay et al. (US 11106728 B2) which discloses playlist ordering. Graham et al. (US 10909171 B2) which discloses Intelligent automated assistants (or digital assistants). Peterson et al. (US 20140172579 A1) which discloses monitoring a user accessing a media asset, determining an attentiveness level of the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE H AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7am-2pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270 5389. 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.
JAMIE H. AUSTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JAMIE H AUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights