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 12/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-17 of Application No. 16627977 now (US11762902B2) in view of Santos-Gomez (US 9678656 B2 hereinafter Santos-Gomez)
18369781
16627977 (11762902)
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, at a client device, a plurality of search result items that each correspond to a media content item;
presenting a user interface comprising a scrollable search result area to present two or more of the plurality of search result items, and a focus area to present a preview of a media content item corresponding to one of the plurality of search result items, wherein the scrollable search result area and the focus area are concurrently presented on a screen of the client device;
receiving, while concurrently presenting the scrollable search result area and the focus area on the screen of the client device, user touch inputs in the scrollable search result area, wherein the user touch inputs comprise a user swipe gesture to scroll vertically to a second search result item of the plurality of search result items, and a tap on the second search result item, wherein the user swipe gesture causes the two or more of the plurality of search result items to shift vertically upwards;
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, at a client device, a plurality of search result items that each correspond to a media content item;
presenting a user interface comprising a scrollable search result area to present two or more of the plurality of search result items, and a focus area to present a preview of a media content item corresponding to one of the plurality of search result items, wherein the scrollable search result area and the focus area are concurrently presented on a screen of the client device;
receiving, while concurrently presenting the scrollable search result area and the focus area on the screen of the client device, one or more user touch inputs in the scrollable search result area, wherein the one or more user touch inputs comprise a user swipe gesture to scroll vertically to a second search result item of the plurality of search result items, wherein the user swipe gesture causes the two or more of the plurality of search result items to shift vertically upwards;
in response to receiving the user touch inputs evaluating, while the scrollable search result area and the focus area are presented on the screen of the client device, the user touch inputs and a sequence of the user swipe gesture and the tap to determine whether the user touch inputs indicate a user selection of the second search result item of the plurality of search result items; and
upon receiving the one or more user touch inputs to scroll vertically to the second search result item, determining, based on previously received user gestures associated with a user, whether the one or more user touch inputs indicate a user selection of the second search result item of the plurality of search result items; and
[Santos-Gomez touch inputs are evaluated for selection of a result vs a scroll based on user (Fig. 3 304-B) including drag 10 mm (swipe) and 3mm touch (tap) Col. 6-7 ln.58-6 "the system receives multiple touch inputs from the touch screen. The system then identifies/determines a smallest distance traversed on the touch screen by the multiple touch inputs. For example, the user may drag his finger along the touch screen as it is displaying the multiple scrollable items 5 times. The distances that the user dragged his finger on the touch screen were (in millimeters) 10, 8, 3, 9, and 7. In this example, “3” is the smallest distance traversed on the touch screen by the multiple touch inputs. The system then sets this smallest distance (“3”) traversed on the touch screen by the multiple touch inputs as the threshold physical distance between the touch start and the touch end. Thereafter, the system interprets any finger movement across the touch screen that is 3 mm or less in length to be a selection input, rather than a scrolling input."]
in response to determining that the user touch inputs indicate the user selection of the second search result, presenting a preview of a second media content item corresponding to the second search result item in the focus area while concurrently presenting the scrollable search result area including the second search result on the screen of the client device.
in response to determining that the one or more user touch inputs indicate the user selection of the second search result, presenting a preview of a second media content item corresponding to the second search result item in the focus area while concurrently presenting the scrollable search result area including the second search result on the screen of the client device.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving the user swipe gesture in the scrollable search result area.
(Johnston swipe to scroll vertically Fig. 6H-I ¶154, ¶158)
3. The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the one or more user touch inputs indicate the user selection of the second search result item of the plurality of search result items is based on previously received user gestures associated with a user.
1… determining, based on previously received user gestures associated with a user, whether the one or more user touch inputs indicate a user selection of the second search result item of the plurality of search result items; and
(Johnston Fig. 6H-I ¶)
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the second media content item is a video trailer describing a video represented by the second media content item, a video clip comprising a subsection of the video, or the video.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein a type of the second media content item being presented is based upon previously presented media content items and/or user interactions with the previously presented media content items.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein prior to presenting the second media content item corresponding to the second search result item, presenting a thumbnail associated with the second media content item corresponding to the second search result item in the focus area.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein each search result item of the plurality of search result items comprises metadata describing a corresponding media content item.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein presenting the preview of the second media content item corresponding to the second search result item comprises:
overlaying the preview of the second media content item in the focus area with the metadata describing the second media content item.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the second media content item is a video trailer describing a video represented by the second media content item, a video clip comprising a subsection of the video, or the video.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein a type of the second media content item being presented is based upon previously presented media content items and/or user interactions with the previously presented media content items.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein prior to presenting the second media content item corresponding to the second search result item, presenting a thumbnail associated with the second media content item corresponding to the second search result item in the focus area.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein each search result item of the plurality of search result items comprises metadata describing a corresponding media content item.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein presenting the preview of the second media content item corresponding to the second search result item comprises:
overlaying the preview of the second media content item in the focus area with the metadata describing the second media content item.
Claims 9-20 similar to above
Claims 10-17 similar to above
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: (1) upon receiving the user touch inputs, determining whether the user touch inputs indicate a user selection of the second search result item of the plurality of search result items; are similar to the parent case and relate to terms in the art based on obviousness in view of Santos-Gomez that teaches search and gesture interfaces and therefore the invention is being claimed twice. See MPEP 1504.06. It would have been obvious to incorporate Santos-Gomez as it’s in the same field of search interfaces and addresses problems with misinterpreting touch inputs for improved navigation (Col. 4 ln. 1-14)
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 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 of this title, 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 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene et al. (US 9733809 B1, hereinafter Greene) in view of JOHNSTON et al. (US 20180113579 A1 hereinafter Johnston) and Santos-Gomez (US 9678656 B2 hereinafter Santos-Gomez)
Regarding independent claim 1, Greene discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, at a client device, a plurality of search result items that each correspond to a media content item (Search interface for media Col. 12 ln. 50-55);
presenting a user interface comprising a scrollable search result area to present two or more of the plurality of search result items, and a focus area to present a preview of a media content item corresponding to one of the plurality of search result items, wherein the scrollable search result area and the focus area are concurrently presented on a screen of the client device; (Fig. 4a-d illustrate user interface with results, and focused item 402 for playing media content concurrently col. 2 ln. 57-60 " UI that can include a media player portion and a scrollable portion").
receiving, while concurrently presenting the scrollable search result area and the focus area on the screen of the client device, user touch inputs in the scrollable search result area, wherein the user touch inputs comprise a user swipe gesture to scroll vertically to a second search result item of the plurality of search result items, and a tap on the second search result item, wherein the user swipe gesture causes the two or more of the plurality of search result items to shift vertically upwards to scroll to the second search result item; (swipe to scroll vertically Fig. 3-4 and Col. 8 Ln 43-64 “swipe) to an area in the second portion (e.g., scrollable portion) of the UI. The input can be associated with an input device, such as a mouse, keyboard, touchscreen, trackpad, etc. The input can be a click, a swipe, a gesture, a wheel rotation, etc”)
in response to receiving the user touch inputs, determining whether the user touch inputs indicate a user selection of the second search result item of the plurality of search result items; and (scroll (swipe touch) indicates item to select/play Col. 8 Ln 43-64 “second media item is to automatically play in the UI upon becoming visible in the UI.”)
Greene does not specifically teach in response to determining that the user touch inputs indicate the user selection of the second search result, presenting a preview of a second media content item corresponding to the second search result item in the focus area while concurrently presenting the scrollable search result area including the second search result on the screen of the client device.
However, Johnston teaches in response to determining that the user touch inputs indicate the user selection of the second search result, presenting a preview of a second media content item corresponding to the second search result item in the focus area while concurrently presenting the scrollable search result area including the second search result on the screen of the client device. [background with video preview of item which has focus from input ¶154 " As such, representations 606 are overlaid over a background that includes representative content from media item B (indicated in FIG. 6A by 610). The representative content is optionally a still image (e.g., pre-selected cover art associated with media item B, a still image from the current play position in media item B, etc.) and/or a video (e.g., a video preview of media item B"], [¶173 "The user interface optionally displays, as a background behind the representations of the suggested media, content that is representative of the media item that has the current focus such that as the media item with focus changes, the representative content, as the background, also changes accordingly, such as in FIG. 6A."]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the media scroll interface of Greene in order to have incorporated in response to determining that the user touch inputs indicate the user selection of the second search result, presenting a preview of a second media content item corresponding to the second search result item in the focus area while concurrently presenting the scrollable search result area including the second search result on the screen of the client device of Johnston since both of these mechanisms are directed to media objects retrieval mechanisms and by incorporating the teachings of Johnston into Greene addresses problems with misinterpreting touch inputs for improved navigation (Col. 4 ln. 1-14)
Greene and Johnston do not specifically teach in response to receiving the user touch inputs evaluating, while the scrollable search result area and the focus area are presented on the screen of the client device, the user touch inputs and a sequence of the user swipe gesture and the tap to determine whether the user touch inputs indicate a user selection of the second search result item of the plurality of search result items;
However, Santos-Gomez teaches in response to receiving the user touch inputs evaluating, while the scrollable search result area and the focus area are presented on the screen of the client device, the user touch inputs and a sequence of the user swipe gesture and the tap to determine whether the user touch inputs indicate a user selection of the second search result item of the plurality of search result items; and [touch inputs are evaluated for selection of a result vs a scroll based on user (Fig. 3 304-B) including drag 10 mm (swipe) and 3mm touch (tap) Col. 6-7 ln.58-6 "the system receives multiple touch inputs from the touch screen. The system then identifies/determines a smallest distance traversed on the touch screen by the multiple touch inputs. For example, the user may drag his finger along the touch screen as it is displaying the multiple scrollable items 5 times. The distances that the user dragged his finger on the touch screen were (in millimeters) 10, 8, 3, 9, and 7. In this example, “3” is the smallest distance traversed on the touch screen by the multiple touch inputs. The system then sets this smallest distance (“3”) traversed on the touch screen by the multiple touch inputs as the threshold physical distance between the touch start and the touch end. Thereafter, the system interprets any finger movement across the touch screen that is 3 mm or less in length to be a selection input, rather than a scrolling input."]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scrollable video item preview mechanism of Greene and Johnston in order to have incorporated the overlaying the preview of the second media content item in the focus area with the metadata describing the second media content item, as disclosed by Santos-Gomez, into the scrollable video item preview mechanism of Greene and Johnston since these mechanisms are directed to gesture-based media item navigation mechanisms and by incorporating the teachings of Santos-Gomez into Greene and Johnston would produce a mechanism for detecting a media-change input corresponds to movement in a first direction and ceases to play the initially-displayed media item in the respective region and plays a first media item that is adjacent to the initially-displayed media item in the first sequence, as disclosed by Santos-Gomez, addresses problems with misinterpreting touch inputs for improved navigation (Col. 4 ln. 1-14)
Regarding dependent claim(s) 2, the combination of Greene, Johnston and Santos-Gomez discloses the method as in claim 1. Greene further discloses receiving the user swipe gesture in the scrollable search result area. (Greene swipe to scroll vertically Fig. 3-4 and Col. 8 Ln 43-64 “swipe) to an area in the second portion (e.g., scrollable portion) of the UI. The input can be associated with an input device”)
Regarding dependent claim(s) 4, the combination of Greene, Johnston and Santos-Gomez discloses the method as in claim 1. Johnston further discloses wherein the second media content item is a video trailer describing a video represented by the second media content item, a video clip comprising a subsection of the video, or the video. [Johnston background video preview ¶154]
Regarding dependent claim(s) 6, the combination of Greene, Johnston and Santos-Gomez discloses the method as in claim 1. Johnston further discloses wherein prior to presenting the second media content item corresponding to the second search result item, presenting a thumbnail associated with the second media content item corresponding to the second search result item in the focus area. [Johnston cover art, images, incomplete view in a background ¶154]
Regarding dependent claim(s) 7, the combination of Greene, Johnston and Santos-Gomez discloses the method as in claim 1. Greene further discloses wherein each search result item of the plurality of search result items comprises metadata describing a corresponding media content item. (Greene metadata col. 5 ln. 23-34).
Regarding claims 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19, claims 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 are non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claims and system claims respectively that correspond to the method of claims 1, 4 and 6. Therefore, claims 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected for at least the same reasons as method of claims 1, 4 and 6. Further see Greene. (col. 15 ln. 26-65) for a system and computer-readable storage medium.
Claims 3, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene in view of Johnston and Santos-Gomez as applied above, and further in view of Morton et al. (US 2013/0057489 A1, hereinafter Morton).
Regarding dependent claim(s) 3, the combination of Greene, Johnston and Santos-Gomez discloses the method as in claim 1. However, the combination of Greene, Johnston and Santos-Gomez do not appear to specifically disclose wherein determining whether the one or more user touch inputs indicate the user selection of the second search result item of the plurality of search result items is based on previously received user gestures associated with a user.
In the same field of endeavor, Morton discloses wherein determining whether the one or more user touch inputs indicate the user selection of the second search result item of the plurality of search result items is based on previously received user gestures associated with a user (reads on Para 0034 & 0054-0056 and Fig. 5, in response to detecting the contact with the case, an operation to be performed is identified based on previously received input and/or performed operations in response to such input, as indicated by step C (120). A sequence of previous operations performed in response to user input is analyzed to identify an operation intended by the user).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scrollable video item preview mechanism of Greene, Johnston and Santos-Gomez in order to have incorporated the wherein determining whether the one or more user touch inputs indicate the user selection of the second search result item of the plurality of search result items is based on previously received user gestures associated with a user, as disclosed by Morton, into the scrollable video item preview mechanism of Greene and Johnston since these mechanisms are directed to touch-based selectable object management mechanisms and by incorporating the teachings of Morton into Greene, Johnston and Santos-Gomez would produce a mechanism for interpreting physical contact with a computing device, as disclosed by Morton, in threshold time or number of operations (see Abstract and ¶5).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, claims 10 and 16 are non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claims and system claims respectively that correspond to the method of claim 3. Therefore, claims 10 and 16 are rejected for at least the same reasons as method of claim 3.
Claim 5, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene in view of Johnston and Santos-Gomez as applied above, and further in view of Jorges et al. (US 2016/0104078 A1, hereinafter Jorges).
Regarding dependent claim(s) 5, the combination of Greene, Johnston and Santos-Gomez discloses the method as in claims 1. However, the combination of Greene, Johnston and Santos-Gomez do not appear to specifically disclose wherein a type of second media content item being presented is based upon previously presented media content items and/or user interactions with the previously presented media content items.
In the same field of endeavor, Jorges discloses wherein a type of second media content item being presented is based upon previously presented media content items and/or user interactions with the previously presented media content items (reads on Para 0014 and Fig. 3, the event list is determined based on a media consumption history associated with a user. As used herein, the media consumption history may include, but is not limited to, a user's previous video viewing history, the user's previous audio listening history, and/or information relating to the user's interactions with the previously played video and/or audio files).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scrollable video item preview mechanism of Greene and Johnston in order to have incorporated the type of second media content item being presented is based upon previously presented media content items and/or user interactions with the previously presented media content items, as disclosed by Jorges into the scrollable video item preview mechanism of Greene, Johnston and Santos-Gomez since these mechanisms are directed to media content presentation mechanisms and by incorporating the teachings of Jorges into Greene, Johnston and Santos-Gomez would produce a mechanism for determining a media playlist including one or more media files (e.g., videos) associated with the identified events based on the user profile, which may include, for example, a media consumption history, as disclosed by Jorges, in a less manual technique (see Abstract and ¶3).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, claims 12 and 18 are non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claims and system claims respectively that correspond to the method of claim 5. Therefore, claims 12 and 18 are rejected for at least the same reasons as method of claim 5.
Claims 8, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene in view of Johnston and Santos-Gomez as applied above, and further in view of Hoffert et al. (US 2015/0113407 A1, hereinafter Hoffert).
Regarding dependent claim(s) 8, the combination of Greene, Johnston and Santos-Gomez discloses the method as in claims 1 and 7. However, the combination of Greene, Johnston and Santos-Gomez do not appear to specifically disclose wherein presenting the preview of the second media content item corresponding to the second search result item comprises: overlaying the preview of the second media content item in the focus area with the metadata describing the second media content item.
In the same field of endeavor, Hoffert discloses wherein presenting the preview of the second media content item corresponding to the second search result item comprises: overlaying the preview of the second media content item in the focus area with the metadata describing the second media content item (reads on Para 0081 and Fig. 5C-5L, the sequences of media items are sometimes represented by tiles that include information about corresponding media items represented by the tiles. The information optionally includes one or more of: text information, title).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scrollable video item preview mechanism of Greene, Johnston and Santos-Gomez in order to have incorporated the overlaying the preview of the second media content item in the focus area with the metadata describing the second media content item, as disclosed by Hoffert, into the scrollable video item preview mechanism of Greene, Johnston and Santos-Gomez since these mechanisms are directed to gesture-based media item navigation mechanisms and by incorporating the teachings of Hoffert into Greene, Johnston and Santos-Gomez would produce a mechanism for detecting a media-change input corresponds to movement in a first direction and ceases to play the initially-displayed media item in the respective region and plays a first media item that is adjacent to the initially-displayed media item in the first sequence, as disclosed by Hoffert, overcomes inconveniences and improves enjoyment (see Abstract and ¶5).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, claims 14 and 20 are non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claims and system claims respectively that correspond to the method of claim 8. Therefore, claims 14 and 20 are rejected for at least the same reasons as method of claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025. In the remark, applicant argues that:
(1) Greene and Johnston fail to teach "in response to receiving the user touch inputs evaluating, while the scrollable search result area and the focus area are presented on the screen of the client device, the user touch inputs and a sequence of the user swipe gesture and the tap to determine whether the user touch inputs indicate a user selection of the second search result item of the plurality of search result items;" as recited in amended claim 1 and discussed over interview.
As to point (1), Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection as set forth above of Greene in view of Johnston and Santos-Gomez.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Abanami et al. (US 20070136750 A1) teaches scrolling with an active preview of media items (see ¶3 and Fig. 3 316)
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEAU SPRATT whose telephone number is (571)272-9919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 PST.
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, Jennifer Welch can be reached on 5712127212. 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.
/BEAU D SPRATT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2143