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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 2/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 3, 6, 17, 21-22 have been cancelled. Claim 23 has been added. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-11, 13-16, 18-20, and 23 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections under 112 previously set forth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed with the amendment have been fully considered and are moot upon a new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment, as outlined below.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Jakobsson et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0014543), referred to as Jakobsson herein [previously presented].
Yao et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0037721), referred to as Yao herein [previously presented].
Rice (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0147930), referred to as Rice herein [previously presented].
Luo et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0034752), referred to as Luo herein [previously presented].
De Spiegeleer (WO 2005/064884), referred to as De Spiegeleer herein [previously presented].
Boutin (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0029767), referred to as Boutin herein [previously presented].
Alonzo, III et al. (US Patent Number 12,423,404), referred to as Alonzo herein.
Alspector et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0007152), referred to as Alspector herein.
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 13-16, 20, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice in view of Alonzo.
Regarding claim 1, Rice discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more sequences of instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (Rice, Abstract, ¶0013 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory):
receiving, by a first recipient device, a first media mail targeting a first user of the first recipient device, the first media mail comprising a first set of media content (Rice, ¶0019-¶0021 – multimedia mail including a voice and video portion. Fig. 4 with 402 with ¶0027-¶0028 – receive multimedia message intended for recipient);
analyzing the first set of media content to determine that the first set of media content meets a first set of one or more sensitivity criteria (Rice, Figs. 2 and 4 with Elements 404-408 with ¶0027-¶0028 – analyze the message for spam confidence. In this case, the sensitivity criteria is the spam confidence assessment);
responsive at least to determining that the first set of media content meets the first set of one or more sensitivity criteria,
subsequent to
However, Rice appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Alonzo discloses spam prevention (Alonzo, Abstract), including
subsequent to displaying the first alert and the first interface element on the first recipient device: receiving, by the first recipient device from the first user, a first user input selecting the first interface element for deleting the first set of media content from the recipient device; and responsive to receiving the first user input selecting the first interface element, deleting the first set of media content from the first recipient device (Alonzo, Fig. 7B with 4:57-5:9, 13:64-14:19 – notification interface includes options for deletion of the message. 13:8-29 – notification is displayed at the user device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the video classification of Rice to include displaying selectable user interface elements within the notification based on the teachings of Alonzo. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user flexibility and convenience in controlling the automated spam response, especially in case of misdetection.
Regarding claim 2, Rice as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein a second device: (a) generated the first set of media content at least by recording sound and/or video detected by the second device subsequent to an unanswered call by the second device to the first device, and (b) transmitted the first set of media content in the first media mail to the first recipient device (Rice, Fig. 2 with ¶0015-¶0018, ¶0019, ¶0026, ¶0029 – call recipient is unavailable to answer a call, resulting in the caller leaving a multimedia message which is sent to the recipient. Audio and video of the message is processed to detect an unwanted message).
Regarding claim 7, Rice as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the first set of one or more sensitivity criteria is a set of global sensitivity criteria utilized by a plurality of recipient devices for analyzing respective media mail received at each of the plurality of recipient devices (Rice, ¶0015, ¶0029 – recipients in the form of phone numbers of a telecom network or email addresses. ¶0019, ¶0022-¶0023 -Bayesian filtering algorithms to identify text before delivering it to the subscriber recipient. Alonzo, Fig. 2 with 2:32-46, 3:56-63 – multiple recipient devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the recipients of Rice to include multiple recipient devices based on the teachings of Alonzo. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the recipients the flexibility and convenience of receiving communications on dedicated personal devices.
Regarding claim 13, Rice as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the operations further comprise: computing the first set of one or more sensitivity criteria based on a user relationship between (a) the first user and (b) a second user of a second device that transmitted the first media mail to the first user device (Alonzo, 2:4-31, 5:10-39, 13:30-14:19 – trusted users/devices/contacts are used to help identify whether the email is spam).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the classification of Rice to include identifying trusted users/devices/contacts based on the teachings of Alonzo. The motivation for doing so would have been to more effectively identify spam messages, especially to avoid improperly identifying an email as spam by identifying users that are known to the recipient (Alonzo, 5:10-5:39).
Regarding claim 14, Rice as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the operations further comprise: computing the first set of or more sensitivity criteria based on whether information associated with a second user, of a second device that transmitted the first media mail to the first user device, is included in a contact list stored by the first user device (Alonzo, 2:4-31, 5:10-39, 13:30-014:19 – trusted users/devices/contacts are used to help identify whether the email is spam).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the classification of Rice to include identifying trusted users/devices/contacts based on the teachings of Alonzo. The motivation for doing so would have been to more effectively identify spam messages, especially to avoid improperly identifying an email as spam by identifying users that are known to the recipient (Alonzo, 5:10-5:39).
Regarding claim 15, Rice discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a first recipient device, a first media mail targeting a first user of the first recipient device, the first media mail comprising a first set of media content (Rice, ¶0019-¶0021 – multimedia mail including a voice and video portion. Fig. 4 with 402 with ¶0027-¶0028 – receive multimedia message intended for recipient);
analyzing the first set of media content to determine that the first set of media content meets a first set of one or more sensitivity criteria (Rice, Figs. 2 and 4 with Elements 404-408 with ¶0027-¶0028 – analyze the message for spam confidence. In this case, the sensitivity criteria is the spam confidence assessment);
responsive at least to determining that the first set of media content meets the first set of one or more sensitivity criteria,
subsequent to
However, Rice appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Alonzo discloses spam prevention (Alonzo, Abstract), including
subsequent to displaying the first alert and the first interface element on the first recipient device: receiving, by the first recipient device from the first user, a first user input selecting the first interface element for deleting the first set of media content from the recipient device; and responsive to receiving the first user input selecting the first interface element, deleting the first set of media content from the first recipient device (Alonzo, Fig. 7B with 4:57-5:9, 13:64-14:19 – notification interface includes options for deletion of the message. 13:8-29 – notification is displayed at the user device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the video classification of Rice to include displaying selectable user interface elements within the notification based on the teachings of Alonzo. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user flexibility and convenience in controlling the automated spam response, especially in case of misdetection.
Regarding claim 16, Rice as modified discloses the elements of claim 15 above, and further discloses wherein a second device: (a) generated the first set of media content at least by recording sound and/or video detected by the second device subsequent to an unanswered call by the second device to the first device, and (b) transmitted the first set of media content in the first media mail to the first recipient device (Rice, Fig. 2 with ¶0015-¶0018, ¶0019, ¶0026, ¶0029 – call recipient is unavailable to answer a call, resulting in the caller leaving a multimedia message which is sent to the recipient. Audio and video of the message is processed to detect an unwanted message).
Regarding claim 20, Rice discloses a system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more sequences of instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (Rice, Abstract, ¶0013 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory):
receiving, by a first recipient device, a first media mail targeting a first user of the first recipient device, the first media mail comprising a first set of media content (Rice, ¶0019-¶0021 – multimedia mail including a voice and video portion. Fig. 4 with 402 with ¶0027-¶0028 – receive multimedia message intended for recipient);
analyzing the first set of media content to determine that the first set of media content meets a first set of one or more sensitivity criteria (Rice, Figs. 2 and 4 with Elements 404-408 with ¶0027-¶0028 – analyze the message for spam confidence. In this case, the sensitivity criteria is the spam confidence assessment);
responsive at least to determining that the first set of media content meets the first set of one or more sensitivity criteria,
subsequent to content from the recipient device; and responsive to receiving
However, Rice appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Alonzo discloses spam prevention (Alonzo, Abstract), including
subsequent to displaying the first alert and the first interface element on the first recipient device: receiving, by the first recipient device from the first user, a first user input selecting the first interface element for deleting the first set of media content from the recipient device; and responsive to receiving the first user input selecting the first interface element, deleting the first set of media content from the first recipient device (Alonzo, Fig. 7B with 4:57-5:9, 13:64-14:19 – notification interface includes options for deletion of the message. 13:8-29 – notification is displayed at the user device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the video classification of Rice to include displaying selectable user interface elements within the notification based on the teachings of Alonzo. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user flexibility and convenience in controlling the automated spam response, especially in case of misdetection.
Regarding claim 23, Rice discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses receiving, by the first recipient device, a second media mail targeting the first user of the first recipient device, the second media mail comprising a second set of media content; analyzing the second set of media content to determine that the second set of media content meets the first set of one or more sensitivity criteria (Rice, ¶0016-¶0019 – multiple messages can be received and analyzed);
responsive at least to determining that the second set of media content meets the first set of one or more sensitivity criteria, displaying on the first recipient device: a second alert associated with the first set of one or more sensitivity criteria, a second interface element for deleting the first set of media content from the first recipient device, and a third interface element for displaying the second set of media content; subsequent to displaying the second alert, the second interface element, and the third interface element on the first recipient device: receiving, by the first recipient device from the first user, a second user input selecting the third interface element for displaying the second set of media content; and responsive to receiving the second user input selecting the third interface element, displaying the second set of media content on the first recipient device (Rice, ¶0023, ¶0032 – notification is generated that notifies the user of spam. The notification can be used to delete the message or simply notify the user prior to presenting the original multimedia message. Alonzo, Fig. 7B with 4:57-5:9, 13:64-14:19 – notification interface includes options including deletion of the message or proceeding to access the message).
Claim(s) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice in view of Alonzo in further view of Yao.
Regarding claim 4, Rice as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above. However, Rice as modified appears not to expressly disclose wherein the operations further comprise: displaying, by the first recipient device, a notification corresponding to receipt of the first media mail by the first recipient device in a list of mail notifications, the list of mail notifications comprising notifications associated with one or more of: media mail and voicemail.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yao discloses email message organization, including for unwanted content (Yao, Abstract, ¶0027), including
wherein the operations further comprise: displaying, by the first recipient device, a notification corresponding to receipt of the first media mail by the first recipient device in a list of mail notifications, the list of mail notifications comprising notifications associated with one or more of: media mail and voicemail (Yao, Figs. 4A-G with ¶0027-¶0029 – email list view. Abstract with ¶0017, ¶0119 – voicemail and video data file attachments).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the message classification of Rice as modified to include mail notifications based on the teachings of Yao. The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate access and organization of email and email attachments (Yao, ¶0028).
Regarding claim 18, Rice as modified discloses the elements of claim 15 above. However, Rice as modified appears not to expressly disclose displaying, by the first recipient device, a notification corresponding to receipt of the first media mail by the first recipient device in a list of mail notifications, the list of mail notifications comprising notifications associated with one or more of: media mail and voicemail.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yao discloses email message organization, including for unwanted content (Yao, Abstract, ¶0027), including
displaying, by the first recipient device, a notification corresponding to receipt of the first media mail by the first recipient device in a list of mail notifications, the list of mail notifications comprising notifications associated with one or more of: media mail and voicemail (Yao, Figs. 4A-G with ¶0027-¶0029 – email list view. Abstract with ¶0017, ¶0119 – voicemail and video data file attachments).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the message classification of Rice as modified to include mail notifications based on the teachings of Yao. The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate access and organization of email and email attachments (Yao, ¶0028).
Claim(s) 5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice in view of Alonzo in view of Yao in further view of Jakobsson.
Regarding claim 5, Rice as modified discloses the elements of claim 4 above. However, Rice as modified appears not to expressly disclose receiving a second user input selecting the notification corresponding to the receipt of the first media mail,
However, Rice as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitation in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Jakobsson discloses analyzing email messages for unwanted content (Jakobsson, Abstract with ¶0063), including
wherein the first alert is displayed on the first recipient device responsive to accessing the message (Jakobsson, Fig. 13B with ¶0239-¶0242 – prior to providing the user with the flagged email, in the message display window, the user is notified that the message has been flagged based on risk assessment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the inbox of Rice as modified to include displaying when the email is opened based on the teachings of Jakobsson. The motivation for doing so would have been to extend the protection notification and override of Rice to the email attachment environment of Jakobsson.
Regarding claim 19, Rice as modified discloses the elements of claim 18 above, and further discloses receiving a second user input selecting the notification corresponding to the receipt of the first media mail,
However, Rice as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitation in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Jakobsson discloses analyzing email messages for unwanted content (Jakobsson, Abstract with ¶0063), including
wherein the first alert is displayed on the first recipient device responsive to accessing the message (Jakobsson, Fig. 13B with ¶0239-¶0242 – prior to providing the user with the flagged email, in the message display window, the user is notified that the message has been flagged based on risk assessment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the inbox of Rice as modified to include displaying when the email is opened based on the teachings of Jakobsson. The motivation for doing so would have been to extend the protection notification and override of Rice to the email attachment environment of Jakobsson.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice in view of Alonzo in further view of De Spiegeleer in further view of Boutin.
Regarding claim 8, Rice as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above. However, Rice as modified does not appear to expressly disclose wherein the first set of one or more sensitivity criteria is a set of user-specific sensitivity criteria, and wherein the operations further comprise: determining the first set of one or more sensitivity criteria based on a second user input selecting one or more attributes of the first set of one or more sensitivity criteria.
However, in the same field of endeavor, De Spiegeleer discloses identifying, including adult content attributes including within media messages (De Spiegeleer, Abstract with Page 1 lines 11-19, Page 19 lines 2-22), including
receiving, by a first recipient device, a first media mail targeting a first user of the first recipient device, the first media mail comprising a first set of media content; analyzing the first set of media content to determine that the first set of media content meets a first set of one or more sensitivity criteria (De Spiegeleer, Page 16 lines 1-9, 21-31, Page 17 lines 1-2 – scanning files, including video, for nudity. Page 19 lines 2-22 – local agent is triggered upon receiving or opening email attachments).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the video classification of Rice to include classification of adult images and videos in email attachments based on the teachings of De Spiegeleer. The motivation for doing so would have been to extend detection and control unwanted adult content to additional content such as email attachments (De Spiegeleer, Page 1 lines 11-19).
However, Rice as modified appears not to expressly disclose wherein the first set of one or more sensitivity criteria is a set of user-specific sensitivity criteria, and wherein the operations further comprise: determining the first set of one or more sensitivity criteria based on a second user input selecting one or more attributes of the first set of one or more sensitivity criteria.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Boutin discloses a content restriction system (Boutin, Abstract), including
wherein the first set of one or more sensitivity criteria is a set of user-specific sensitivity criteria, and wherein the operations further comprise: determining the first set of one or more sensitivity criteria based on a second user input selecting one or more attributes of the first set of one or more sensitivity criteria (Boutin, ¶0013, ¶0035 – parent or guardian can customize restricted content settings, including selecting the restriction according to maturity rating, genre, manufacturer, etc. A parent or guardian can set a password to prevent access restrict the access of a child user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the age restrictions of Rice as modified to include parental selections based on the teachings of Boutin. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable customized restrictions based on parent preferences, allowing additional flexibility in content restrictions to better accommodate specific user needs.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice in view of Alonzo in further view of Alspector.
Regarding claim 9, Rice as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, by a second recipient device, a second media mail targeting a second user of the second recipient device, the second media mail comprising the first set of media content; analyzing, by the second recipient device, the first set of media content to determine that the first set of media content medisplaying the second alert on the second recipient device: receiving, by the second recipient device from the second user, a second user input approving playback of the first set of media content; and responsive to receiving the second user input approving the playback of the first set of media content, initiating the playback of the first set of media content on the second recipient device (Rice, ¶0016-¶0019 – multiple messages can be received and analyzed. ¶0023 – notification is generated that notifies the user of spam. The notification can be used to delete the message or simply notify the user. Alonzo, Fig. 7B with 4:57-5:9, 13:64-14:19 – notification interface includes options including deletion of the message, proceeding to access the message).
However, Rice appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Alspector discloses an email classifier for classifying spam emails (Alspector, Abstract), including
wherein the second set of one or more sensitivity criteria is different than the first set of one or more sensitivity criteria (Alspector, Fig. 2 with ¶0025, ¶0042-¶0050, ¶0055 – global and personal email classifiers are each used to classify spam messages).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the video classification of Rice to include global and personal email spam filtering based on the teachings of Alspector. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the global classifier to be less stringent, and tailor additional spam classification based on the user’s subject perceptions and preferences (Alspector, ¶0055).
Regarding claim 10, Rice as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the operations further comprise:
and determining that the sensitivity score meets the first set of one or more sensitivity criteria;
However, Rice appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Alspector discloses an email classifier for classifying spam emails (Alspector, Abstract), including
training a machine learning model based on training data to compute sensitivity scores for sets of content, the training data including a first training dataset comprising: a particular set of media content; and a label indicating a sensitivity score corresponding to the particular set of media content, and receiving, from the first user, feedback for the first set of media content; and updating the machine learning model based on the feedback (Alspector, ¶0067-¶0071 – retraining the personal message classifier based on manual re-classification (feedback) from users. ¶0011-¶0019 – training data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the video classification of Rice to include machine learning training and updated training based on feedback based on the teachings of Alspector. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the classifier to more effectively classify messages, and to better tailor additional spam classification based on the user’s subject perceptions and preferences (Alspector, ¶0055).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice in view of Alonzo in further view of Luo.
Regarding claim 11, Rice as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the operations further comprise:
presenting the original multimedia message. Alonzo, Fig. 7B with 4:57-5:9, 13:64-14:19 – notification interface includes options including deletion of the message or proceeding to access the message).
However, Rice as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Luo discloses identifying unwanted content (Luo, Abstract), including
training a machine learning model based on training data to compute sets of sensitivity criteria for users, the training data including a first training dataset comprising: a first plurality of sets of content; an approval or disapproval indication, by a particular user, for each particular set of media content in the first plurality of sets of content indicating whether the particular user approved or disapproved of the particular set of media content in the first plurality of sets of content; and a label, associated with the particular user, defining a particular set of one or more sensitivity criteria for the particular user (Luo, Abstract with Fig. 2 and ¶0051-¶0054 – labeled training set is used to develop a classification system for email. ¶0050 – users can reclassify or otherwise manually label (approve/disapprove) email categorization labels. ¶0052 – email features or attributes are determined to identify patterns associated with particular labels),
applying the machine learning model to a target dataset, associated with the first user, to compute the first set of one or more sensitivity criteria, the target dataset comprising: a second plurality of sets of content; and an approval or disapproval indication, by the first user, for each particular set of media content in the second plurality of sets of content indicating whether the first user approved or disapproved of the particular set of media content in the second plurality of sets of content; receiving feedback, for the first set of media content, from the first user comprising one of an approval or disapproval for the first set of media content; and updating the machine learning model based on the feedback for the first set of media content (Luo, Fig. 1D with ¶0047, ¶0050 – feedback from users on classified email is used to improve the training data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the content classification of Rice as modified to include labeled training data based on the teachings of Luo. The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate the initialization of a machine learning model to enable model scalability for wider use (Luo, ¶0031-¶0032).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time.
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). 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.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174