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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an AMENDMENT entered on January 15, 2026 for patent application 18/363,588 filed on August 1, 2023.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 10, 19 and 20 are allowed.
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 11-18 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the updated information” in the second to last line of the claim. Because Applicant removed the phrase “and wherein the request includes a request to update at least a portion of the dynamic information with updated information” from the language of claim 11, even though such a claim amendment is not noted by showing the deleted claim language crossed out, this creates an antecedence issue, and thus there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-13, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0031365) in view of Blumbergs et al. (Pub. No.: US 2004/0181334).
Regarding claim 11, Marti discloses an infotainment system of a vehicle, the infotainment system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory that stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: initiate a refresh limit threshold (Figs. 5A-5C, paras. [0039]-[0041]; delivery of a message will be delayed by the system until a point in time at which it is safe to be delivered under the safety parameters of the system; i.e. when the impact of the notification would not push the load on the user over threshold 522. When the system is activated, the threshold 522 is initiated.); receive, from an application executing at the infotainment system (Fig. 1, elements 110 and 130, paras. [0020] and [0021]), a request to refresh a graphical user interface of the application being displayed by a display of the infotainment system (Fig. 6B, para. [0043]. Displaying a notification which requires optical content axiomatically requires a refresh of the graphical user interface on which said notification is going to be displayed), wherein at least a portion of the graphical user interface includes dynamic information (Fig. 5B, element 542, para. [0040]; Marti discloses a viral media clip, which can be seen as dynamic information), and wherein the application is one of a navigation application, a weather application, a news application, a phone dialer application, an information retrieval application, a multimedia application, a vehicle information application, an email application, a text messaging application, an instant messaging application, a stock market application, an emergency alert application, and a sports application (para. [0043]; “Notification 642 corresponds to an email sent by the boss of driver 150, while notification 644 corresponds to an indication of the final score of a sporting event (potentially received via a sports app).”); determine whether the request was received during a time at which processing said request would cause the refresh limit threshold to be exceeded (Figs. 5A-5C, paras. [0039]-[0041]; if the notification was received during a time period at which the impact score of said notification would push the load on the user over the acceptable load limit 522, the delivery of said message will be delayed by the system until a point in time at which it is safe to be delivered under the safety parameters of the system; i.e. when the impact of the notification would not push the load on the user over limit 522.); responsive to determining that the request was received during a time at which processing said request would cause the refresh limit threshold to be exceeded, delay processing of the request (Figs. 5A-5C, paras. [0039]-[0041]; delivery of said message will be delayed by the system until a point in time at which it is safe to be delivered under the safety parameters of the system; i.e. when the impact of the notification would not push the load on the user over limit 522. Any time at which the notification would be delayed can be seen as a refresh limit period.); and responsive to a load returning to a safe level: process the request (Figs. 5A-5C, paras. [0039]-[0041]; the message is displayed when safe to do so; i.e. when the impact of the notification would not push the load on the user over limit 522.), wherein to process the request, the one or more processors are further configured to fetch the updated information (Fig. 5B, element 542, para. [0040]; were the viral media clip played, the system would axiomatically have to fetch the updated information in order to properly display said clip.); and responsive to processing the request, recalculate the distance between the load and the refresh limit threshold (Figs. 5A-5C, paras. [0039]-[0041]; the “refresh limit period” will automatically be initiated by having the load on the user increased by the notification amount.).
It could be argued that Marti does not explicitly disclose initiating a refresh limit period, and thus does not disclose determining whether request was received during the refresh limit period, responsive to determining that the request was received during the refresh limit period, delaying processing of the request, and responsive to expiration of the refresh limit period: processing the request, and responsive to processing the request, reinitiating, by the one or more processors, the refresh limit period. However, in analogous art, Blumbergs discloses a navigation system for dynamic access to different degrees of navigation function, wherein “the navigation method and system of the present invention is designed to discourage the user to continuously look at the display screen by delaying the screen update, thereby avoiding distraction from the driving (paras. [0026] and [0122]),” and further discloses that “FIG. 20B schematically shows a situation where the highlight is moved to the bottom (entry 3) of the three selectable entries. The user's selection of the highlight position is promptly reflected on the display. However, the disabled areas remain unchanged for a certain period of time. Then, in FIG. 20C, after a predetermined delay time, the disabled area (with diagonal hatch) in the bottom changes to a new entry 4 which is selectable while the entry 1 is disabled. In other words, the three selectable entries shift downwardly by one step (para. [0119]).” These disclosures in Blumbergs disclose both that the updating of a portion of a graphical user interface which includes dynamic information can be delayed for a period of time, and further that delays can involve a certain period of time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marti to allow for initiating a refresh limit period, determining whether request was received during the refresh limit period, responsive to determining that the request was received during the refresh limit period, delaying processing of the request, and responsive to expiration of the refresh limit period: processing the request, and responsive to processing the request, reinitiating, by the one or more processors, the refresh limit period. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a set period of time to be used as a delay between certain screen updates, which could further increase driver safety by minimizing driver distraction caused by looking at or checking a display device in a moving vehicle too often.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Marti and Blumbergs discloses the infotainment system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: responsive to determining that the request was received outside of the refresh limit period: process the request; and responsive to processing the request, reinitiate the refresh limit period (Marti, Figs. 5A-5C, paras. [0039]-[0041], Blumbergs, paras. [0026], [0119] and [0122]; if the notification was received during a time period at which the impact score of said notification would not push the load on the user over the acceptable load limit 522, the notification will be delivered.).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Marti and Blumbergs discloses the infotainment system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine whether the request is user-initiated, wherein the one or more processors are configured to delay processing of the request further in response to determining that the request is not user-initiated (Marti, Figs. 5A-5C, paras. [0039]-[0041]; both Text from Spouse P1 and Viral Media Clip P2 are not user-initiated.).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Marti and Blumbergs discloses the infotainment system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine whether the vehicle is in a stationary state, wherein the one or more processors are configured to delay processing of the request further in response to determining that the vehicle is not in the stationary state (Marti, Figs. 6A-6C; para. [0042]; “For example, and without limitation, NCS 100 could analyze real-time driving information and determine that driver 150 is currently engaged with navigating heavy traffic.”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Marti and Blumbergs discloses the infotainment system of claim 11, wherein the request to refresh the graphical user interface does not include changing a layout of the graphical user interface (Marti, Fig. 6B, para. [0043]. Displaying a notification which requires optical content axiomatically requires a refresh of the graphical user interface on which said notification is going to be displayed; because the text of Marti does not include the word “layout,” it can be assumed that the posting of the notification does not change the layout of the graphical user interface.).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Marti and Blumbergs discloses the infotainment system of claim 11, wherein the request to refresh the graphical user interface does not include changing one or more headers of the graphical user interface (Marti, Fig. 6B, para. [0043]. Displaying a notification which requires optical content axiomatically requires a refresh of the graphical user interface on which said notification is going to be displayed; because the text of Marti does not include the word “header,” it can be assumed that the posting of the notification does not change one or more headers of the graphical user interface.).
Claims 11-13, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0031365) in view of Blumbergs et al. (Pub. No.: US 2004/0181334) and Latorre et al. (Pat. No.: US 11,113,757).
Regarding claim 11, Marti discloses an infotainment system of a vehicle, the infotainment system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory that stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: initiate a refresh limit threshold (Figs. 5A-5C, paras. [0039]-[0041]; delivery of a message will be delayed by the system until a point in time at which it is safe to be delivered under the safety parameters of the system; i.e. when the impact of the notification would not push the load on the user over threshold 522. When the system is activated, the threshold 522 is initiated.); receive, from an application executing at the infotainment system (Fig. 1, elements 110 and 130, paras. [0020] and [0021]), a request to refresh a graphical user interface of the application being displayed by a display of the infotainment system (Fig. 6B, para. [0043]. Displaying a notification which requires optical content axiomatically requires a refresh of the graphical user interface on which said notification is going to be displayed), and wherein the application is one of a navigation application, a weather application, a news application, a phone dialer application, an information retrieval application, a multimedia application, a vehicle information application, an email application, a text messaging application, an instant messaging application, a stock market application, an emergency alert application, and a sports application (para. [0043]; “Notification 642 corresponds to an email sent by the boss of driver 150, while notification 644 corresponds to an indication of the final score of a sporting event (potentially received via a sports app).”); determine whether the request was received during a time at which processing said request would cause the refresh limit threshold to be exceeded (Figs. 5A-5C, paras. [0039]-[0041]; if the notification was received during a time period at which the impact score of said notification would push the load on the user over the acceptable load limit 522, the delivery of said message will be delayed by the system until a point in time at which it is safe to be delivered under the safety parameters of the system; i.e. when the impact of the notification would not push the load on the user over limit 522.); responsive to determining that the request was received during a time at which processing said request would cause the refresh limit threshold to be exceeded, delay processing of the request (Figs. 5A-5C, paras. [0039]-[0041]; delivery of said message will be delayed by the system until a point in time at which it is safe to be delivered under the safety parameters of the system; i.e. when the impact of the notification would not push the load on the user over limit 522. Any time at which the notification would be delayed can be seen as a refresh limit period.); and responsive to a load returning to a safe level: process the request (Figs. 5A-5C, paras. [0039]-[0041]; the message is displayed when safe to do so; i.e. when the impact of the notification would not push the load on the user over limit 522.), and responsive to processing the request, recalculate the distance between the load and the refresh limit threshold (Figs. 5A-5C, paras. [0039]-[0041]; the “refresh limit period” will automatically be initiated by having the load on the user increased by the notification amount.).
It could be argued that Marti does not explicitly disclose initiating a refresh limit period, and thus does not disclose determining whether request was received during the refresh limit period, responsive to determining that the request was received during the refresh limit period, delaying processing of the request, and responsive to expiration of the refresh limit period: processing the request, and responsive to processing the request, reinitiating, by the one or more processors, the refresh limit period. However, in analogous art, Blumbergs discloses a navigation system for dynamic access to different degrees of navigation function, wherein “the navigation method and system of the present invention is designed to discourage the user to continuously look at the display screen by delaying the screen update, thereby avoiding distraction from the driving (paras. [0026] and [0122]),” and further discloses that “FIG. 20B schematically shows a situation where the highlight is moved to the bottom (entry 3) of the three selectable entries. The user's selection of the highlight position is promptly reflected on the display. However, the disabled areas remain unchanged for a certain period of time. Then, in FIG. 20C, after a predetermined delay time, the disabled area (with diagonal hatch) in the bottom changes to a new entry 4 which is selectable while the entry 1 is disabled. In other words, the three selectable entries shift downwardly by one step (para. [0119]).” These disclosures in Blumbergs disclose both that the updating of a portion of a graphical user interface which includes dynamic information can be delayed for a period of time, and further that delays can involve a certain period of time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marti to allow for initiating a refresh limit period, determining whether request was received during the refresh limit period, responsive to determining that the request was received during the refresh limit period, delaying processing of the request, and responsive to expiration of the refresh limit period: processing the request, and responsive to processing the request, reinitiating, by the one or more processors, the refresh limit period. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a set period of time to be used as a delay between certain screen updates, which could further increase driver safety by minimizing driver distraction caused by looking at or checking a display device in a moving vehicle too often.
It could be argued that the combination of Marti and Blumbergs does not explicitly disclose wherein at least a portion of the graphical user interface includes dynamic information; nor wherein to process the request, the one or more processors are further configured to fetch the updated information. However, in analogous art, Latorre discloses that a “customer 104 may request a social media update at 500 via their user device 102. In one arrangement, the customer 104 may request the social media updated via the social media app 122. The social media update may be a request to provide any new social media content available from one or more social media services. The social media server 108 receives the social media update at 502 and generates social media data 504 at 506. The social media data 504 may be all social media generated since a previous request for a social media update was presented by the customer 104. The social media data 504 is then transmitted to the customer FI social media computing system 110 at 508 (col. 15, ln. 21-33; see also figure 5),” wherein “[t]he customer FI social media computing system 110 then determines if there is restricted social media content at 512 (col. 15, ln. 56-58),” which teaches that a user can request to update dynamic information, i.e. social media content, as well as teaching that there can be certain barriers in place which prevent the updating of certain media content. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marti and Blumbergs to allow for at least a portion of the graphical user interface to include dynamic information, wherein to process the request, the one or more processors are further configured to fetch the updated information. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for diversifying the type of content displayed by the system of Marti, which could increase user satisfaction with the system.
Claims 12, 13, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected as shown in section 4, above, but wherein the claims on which they depend are rejected as shown in this section.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0031365) in view of Blumbergs et al. (Pub. No.: US 2004/0181334) and Friedland et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0025804).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Marti and Blumbergs discloses the infotainment system of claim 13, but it could be argued that the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: responsive to determining that that the request is user-initiated: process the request; and responsive to processing the request, reinitiate the refresh limit period. However, in analogous art, Friedland discloses that “FIGS. 17-20 illustrate an example of a process performed by the user interaction system 199. In this example, the system 199, following user activation, decides that it is indeed safe to execute an NDRT. The road display 204 shows that the vehicle is within an NDRT safe area As shown in FIG. 17, the vehicle path markers 210 are green, the steering wheel indicator 212 is green (optionally with white dashed lines 201 or other suitable indicator) and the NDRT safe segment marker in the section 214 is active. At that point, the My Tasks section becomes enabled, optionally accompanied by a short pleasant sound and gentle pulsation of the steering wheel 202 to indicate that it is safe to interact with the infotainment system and/or conduct any other NDRT (para. [0171]),” which teaches that a user-initiated request can be processed under the proper conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marti to allow for responsive to determining that that the request is user-initiated, process the request, and responsive to processing the request, reinitiate the refresh limit period. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for certain driver inputs to be processed, even if the system had made the calculation that certain requests were not appropriate to be processed, which could increase user satisfaction with the system.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Marti and Blumbergs discloses the infotainment system of claim 15, but it could be argued that the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: responsive to determining that that the vehicle is in the stationary state: process the request. However, in analogous art, Friedland discloses that “[i]n an embodiment, the system determines the amount of time to be allocated based on user readiness and environmental context. An “environmental context” includes any combination of environmental conditions and features that can affect driving or operating behavior. An environmental context may include features of the environment around a vehicle or other automated system, which may include the physical surrounding and features and conditions thereof (e.g., other vehicles, pedestrians, road type, intersections, traffic control devices, road conditions, time of day, weather, etc.), and vehicle dynamics (e.g., stationary, at a given speed, braking, accelerating, turning, etc.). User readiness refers to a condition of the user (e.g., distracted, stressed, eyes away from the road, transitioning to manual control, etc.) indicative of whether a user is ready to perform a task related to controlling the vehicle’s automated system (para. [0055]),” which teaches that a vehicle being stationary can be a factor in determining the “environmental context” of whether or not it is safe for a driver to do something other than operate the vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marti to allow for the one or more processors to be further configured to: responsive to determining that that the vehicle is in the stationary state: process the request. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for users to perform various operations when it was safe to do so, i.e. when the vehicle is stationary.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0031365) in view of Blumbergs et al. (Pub. No.: US 2004/0181334), Latorre et al. (Pat. No.: US 11,113,757) and Friedland et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0025804).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected are shown in section 6, above, but wherein the claims on which they depend are rejected as shown in section 5, above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 11:
However, Latorre does not describe "receiving, by the one or more processors and from an application executing at the infotainment system [of a vehicle], a request to refresh a graphical user interface of the application being displayed by a display of the infotainment system, wherein at least a portion of the graphical user interface includes dynamic information, and wherein the request includes a request to update at least a portion of the dynamic information with updated information, and wherein the application is one of a navigation application, a weather application, a news application, a phone dialer application, an information retrieval application, a multimedia application, a vehicle information application, an email application, a text messaging application, an instant messaging application, a stock market application, an emergency alert application, and a sports application," as recited by amended claim 11. Latorre is directed to "receiving social media data from the social media service at a social media computing system and analyzing the received social media data," in which "[a]nalyzing the received social media data comprises categorizing content within the received social media data as one or more of restricted content elements and unrestricted content elements." Applicant asserts that one skilled in the art in possession of Marti's system for "delivery of notifications to the driver of a vehicle" and/or Blumbergs's "navigation method and system [that] allows dynamic access to different degrees of navigation functions while a vehicle is in motion" would not look to Latorre's method for filtering "social media content having a negative influence on the goals of the customer" to arrive at the features of Applicant's claim 11.
Examiner’s response:
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
That is, Applicant states that “Latorre does not describe "receiving, by the one or more processors and from an application executing at the infotainment system [of a vehicle].” Latorre need not disclose as much, as the concept of “an application executing at the infotainment system [of a vehicle]” has already been disclosed by Marti, as shown in the above rejection.
Applicant goes on to state that “Latorre is directed to "receiving social media data…,” and as such, “Applicant asserts that one skilled in the art in possession of Marti's [and Blumbergs's] system[s]… would not look to Latorre's method for filtering "social media content having a negative influence on the goals of the customer" to arrive at the features of Applicant's claim 11.” Examiner disagrees.
Latorre is teaching concepts related to updating data, which is certainly relevant to the disclosures of Marti and Blumbergs. Further, Marti has already disclosed the concept of receiving email messages, which is a type of social interaction, and thus it is not a huge leap to bring in a reference discussing social media. Finally, Examiner brought in the rejection in view of Latorre as a redundant rejection. Examiner still maintains that Marti in view of Blumbergs alone discloses Applicant’s invention as currently claimed in claim 11, and Applicant did not provide any arguments related to that rejection.
Therefore, for all of the above reasons, Examiner maintains the rejections.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 12:
Furthermore, the Office Action stated, "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marti and Blumbergs [with Latorre]... This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for diversifying the type of content displayed by the system of Marti, which could increase user satisfaction with the system. However, Applicant's claimed subject matter provides a solution to a technical problem that Latorre does not address, i.e., Latorre's method "for filtering digital content having a negative financial influence" does not "buffer the rate at which the application refreshes the GUI, which may reduce the frequency a vehicle operator diverts eyes from the primary driving task to look at the GUI," nor does it "advantageously conserve computing resources of the vehicle (e.g., by processing fewer requests)." Thus, there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Marti and Blumbergs with the teachings of Latorre.
Examiner’s response:
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “buffer the rate at which the application refreshes the GUI, which may reduce the frequency a vehicle operator diverts eyes from the primary driving task to look at the GUI,” “advantageously conserve computing resources of the vehicle (e.g., by processing fewer requests).”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Claims 1-8, 10, 19 and 20 are allowed. Claims 11-18 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Joshua D Taylor whose telephone number is (571)270-3755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 6 pm.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/Joshua D Taylor/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 May 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights