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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
I. Mohsin and Bhat teach claims 1, 5–9, 14, 15, 18, and 19.
Claim(s) 1, 5–9, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0308591 A1 (“Mohsin”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0364487 A1 (“Bhat”).
Claim 1
Mohsin teaches:
An electronic device comprising: a display; a wireless communication circuit; a memory; and a processor configured to be operatively connected to the display, the wireless communication circuit, and the memory,
“Computing device 110 includes a presence-sensitive display (PSD) 112, a user interface (UI) module 120, and a keyboard module 122. Modules 120 and 122 may perform operations described using software, hardware, firmware, or a mixture of hardware, software, and firmware residing in and/or executing at computing device 110. For example, one or more processors of computing device 110 may execute instructions that are stored at a memory or other non-transitory storage medium of computing device 110 to perform the operations of modules 120 and 122.” Mohsin ¶ 15.
wherein the processor is configured to:
“FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating example operations of a computing device that is configured to present a graphical keyboard with integrated search features, in accordance with one or more aspects of the present disclosure. The operations of FIG. 5 may be performed by one or more processors of a computing device, such as computing devices 110 of FIG. 1.” Mohsin ¶ 130.
detect a first input for calling a keypad while executing a first application;
“[K]eyboard module 122 may be a stand-alone application or subroutine that is invoked by an application or operating platform of computing device 110 any time an application or operating platform requires graphical keyboard input functionality.” Moshin ¶ 21.
display the keypad on an execution screen of the first application;
“FIG. 5 includes outputting, by computing device 110, for display (e.g., at PSD 112), a graphical keyboard 116B comprising a plurality of keys 118A and a suggestion region 118B (502).” Mohsin ¶ 131. Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 1, the graphical keyboard 116B is displayed simultaneously with an “output region 116A,” which belongs to a messaging application executing on computing device 110. Mohsin ¶ 18.
detect a second input for a search while displaying the keypad;
Returning to FIG. 5, computing device 110 performs step 504 of determining, “based on a selection of . . . one or more keys from the plurality of keys 118A, a search query.” Mohsin ¶ 132.
perform, in response to the second input, the search by sending a content search request based on the second input
“The technique of FIG. 5 may further include retrieving, by computing device 110, one or more search results determined based on the search query (506).” Mohsin ¶ 135. “The search may include . . . a search localized to a location of computing device 210.” Mohsin ¶ 81.
display the classified search results at least including a first result and a second result,
“Further, the technique of FIG. 5 includes outputting, by computing device 110, in place of at least a portion of graphical keyboard 116B, a visual representation of a search result of the one or more search results (508). For example, keyboard module 122 may output an indication of a visual representation of the one or more search results that include one or more card-based user interface element, each card-based user interface element being associated with a respective search result of the one or more search results.” Mohsin ¶ 136 (emphasis added to highlight that some embodiments output more than one results via more than one card-based user interface element, and thus, a “first” and “second” result).
wherein the first result at least includes a first object and a second object,
As shown in FIG. 4B, each card-based user interface element 420 (e.g., 420C) “includes a first predetermined portion 422C and a second predetermined portion 422D.” Mohsin ¶ 122. The claimed “first object” maps to the first predetermined portion 422C, while the claimed “second object” is broad enough to map to either the “second predetermined portion 422D,” or, to any single one of the icons 424 displayed therein. See Mohsin ¶¶ 126–127.
and the second result at least includes a third object, and a fourth object;
The above disclosure applies to all of the one or more search results mentioned above. So, just as card-based user interface element 420C for a first result displayed the first and second objects mentioned above, so too does another card-based user interface element for a second result display corresponding objects as the claimed third and fourth object.
perform, based on receiving an input for selecting of the first object, a first function related to the first result,
FIG. 5 continues by “determining, by computing device 110, based on user input (e.g., at PSD 112), selection of a predetermined portion of the visual representation of the search result (510). For example, keyboard module 122 may receive, from UI module 120, an indication of user input (e.g., a touch event) selecting a first portion of the visual representation of the search result,” and in response, “automatically, without further user input, inserting, by computing device 110, in a text edit region 116C displayed adjacent to graphical keyboard 116B, information related to the search result (512).” Mohsin ¶ 137.
perform, based on receiving an input for selecting of the second object, a second function related to the first result, the second function different from the first function,
On the other hand, “[i]n response to receiving, from PSD 112, a touch event, UI module 120 or keyboard module 122 may determine selection of one of icons 424B–424D in the second predetermined portion 422D, and may transmit an indication of the selection of the one of icons 424B–424D to the associated application, which may perform the action associated with the selected one of icons 424B–424D.” Mohsin ¶ 128. These actions are different from the action of inserting the search result into the text edit region. See Mohsin ¶ 127 (describing the actions performed by each of the respective icons, none of which involve inserting the search result into the text edit region).
wherein performing the first function includes: generating shared information related to the first object; and inputting the shared information into an input area of the keypad in a format according to a content attribute of the first object,
“In response to determining the selection of first predetermined portion 422C, keyboard module 122 may be configured to automatically, without further user input, output an indication of information related to of the search result to UI module 120 and cause UI module 120 to insert the information related to the search result in text edit region 416C.” Mohsin ¶ 123.
and wherein performing the second function includes: executing a second application, from among the plurality of applications, according to a content attribute of the second object; and displaying a screen of the executed second application without displaying the keypad.
“Phone icon 424B is associated with an action of opening a phone application and calling Sandwich Place (i.e., the establishment associated with the search result). Navigation icon 424C is associated with an action of opening a navigation or maps application and retrieving directions to Sandwich Place (i.e., the establishment associated with the search result). Go-to icon 424D is associated with an action of opening a new application related to the search result displayed in card-based user interface element 420C, such as a search application or a website from which the information in the search result was retrieved.” Mohsin ¶ 127.
Accordingly, the only differences between Mohsin and the claimed invention are (1) Mohsin’s analogous content search request is not sent to “each of a plurality of applications installed in the electronic device,” and (2) Mohsin does not necessarily “classify” the search results, although Mohsin does recognize that the search results may be of different data types. See Mohsin ¶¶ 47 and 49.
Moreover, Bhat explicitly teaches a client device 106 (FIG. 1), configured to perform a process (FIGS. 3A–3B), including:
detect a second input for a search while displaying the keypad;
“Beginning with step 303, the search interface component 123 can obtain a search query from the search component 119. The search query in some examples can include a string of text that the user of the client device 106 input into the search component 119.” Bhat ¶ 60. And the user inputs the text into the search component 119 by interacting with “an input region that can facilitate a user inputting search queries.” Bhat ¶ 23.
perform, in response to the second input, the search by sending a content search request based on the second input to each of a plurality of applications installed in the electronic device and collecting search results from each of the plurality of applications;
“As indicated at step 316, the search interface component 123 can request the first application 116 a to search for first application content that corresponds to the search query. Similarly, the search interface component 123 can request the second application 116 b to search for second application content 126 b that corresponds to the search query, as shown at step 319. In addition, the search interface component 123 can request the third application 116 c to search for third application content 126 c that corresponds to the search query, as indicated at step 323.” Bhat ¶ 63.
classify the search results, obtained from the plurality of applications, based on categories of contents in the search results;
“As shown at step 326, the search interface component 123 can then obtain one or more search results from the first application 116a, the second application 116b, and the third application 116c,” and further obtain “metadata” for each of the application search results, “such as a file’s name, creator, and creation data.” Bhat ¶ 64.
display the classified search results at least including a first result and a second result
“The search interface component 123 can then move to step 329, which is shown in FIG. 3B. At step 329, the search interface component 123 can provide the received search results to the search component 119,” Bhat ¶ 64, which utilizes the results in a manner that makes them selectable by a user. See Bhat ¶ 65.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Mohsin’s search interface with Bhat’s technique of forwarding search requests to other applications installed on a device, in order to retrieve application-specific results. One would have been motivated to improve Mohsin with Bhat’s technique because this would allow the search interface to “search for content that is restricted from access,” e.g., because it is protected by the third party applications. Bhat ¶ 4.
Claim 5
Mohsin and Bhat teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
call the keypad based on the detecting of the first input while displaying the execution screen;
Keyboard module 122 may be “invoked by an application or operating platform of computing device 110 any time an application or operating platform requires graphical keyboard input functionality.” Moshin ¶ 21.
and control the display to display the keypad in at least a partial area of the execution screen.
“FIG. 5 includes outputting, by computing device 110, for display (e.g., at PSD 112), a graphical keyboard 116B comprising a plurality of keys 118A and a suggestion region 118B (502).” Mohsin ¶ 131. Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 1, the graphical keyboard 116B is displayed simultaneously with an “output region 116A,” which belongs to a messaging application executing on computing device 110. Mohsin ¶ 18.
Claim 6
Moshin and Bhat teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
receive a keyword and a search command as the second input while displaying the keypad through the display;
“The technique of FIG. 5 also includes determining, by computing device 110, based on a selection of suggestion region 118B or one or more keys from the plurality of keys 118A, a search query (504).” Moshin ¶ 132.
and control a plurality of applications to perform the search based on the keyword.
The Examiner observes that claim 6 still says to control a plurality of applications to perform the search, rather than the new plurality introduced by the April 20, 2026 amendment in claim 1. To that end, Moshin at least teaches that computing device 110 retrieves results by “transmitting, by computing device 110, the search query to a data service, and receiving, by computing device 110, from the data service, one or more search results based on the search query.” Moshin ¶ 135. This necessarily involves at least two applications (and therefore, a plurality), because the two applications involved are (1) the application that displays the keys 118A on the computing device 110, and (2) the search engine executing at the data service.
Claim 7
Mohsin and Bhat teach the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire a search result from at least one application among the plurality of applications;
As mentioned in the rejection of claim 6, step 506 further includes “receiving, by computing device 110, from the data service, one or more search results based on the search query.” Mohsin ¶ 135.
and provide the acquired search result to the keypad.
“Further, the technique of FIG. 5 includes outputting, by computing device 110, in place of at least a portion of graphical keyboard 116B, a visual representation of a search result of the one or more search results (508).” Mohsin ¶ 136.
Claim 8
Mohsin and Bhat teach the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to:
remove at least a part of a key map of the keypad and convert an area corresponding to the part of the key map into a view area for a content display.
“Further, the technique of FIG. 5 includes outputting, by computing device 110, in place of at least a portion of graphical keyboard 116B, a visual representation of a search result of the one or more search results (508).” Mohsin ¶ 136. The results may be displayed “in place of at least one of graphical keys 118A (e.g., in place of all of graphical keys 118A).” Mohsin ¶ 136.
Claim 9
Mohsin and Bhat teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
classify the search results by the plurality of applications into different categories.
“As shown at step 326, the search interface component 123 can then obtain one or more search results from the first application 116a, the second application 116b, and the third application 116c,” and further obtain “metadata” for each of the application search results, “such as a file’s name, creator, and creation data.” Bhat ¶ 64.
Claim 14
Mohsin and Bhat teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
display the keypad on the display;
“FIG. 5 includes outputting, by computing device 110, for display (e.g., at PSD 112), a graphical keyboard 116B comprising a plurality of keys 118A and a suggestion region 118B (502).” Mohsin ¶ 131. Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 1, the graphical keyboard 116B is displayed simultaneously with an “output region 116A,” which belongs to a messaging application executing on computing device 110. Mohsin ¶ 18.
perform an integrated search of content according to a keyword
“The technique of FIG. 5 may further include retrieving, by computing device 110, one or more search results determined based on the search query (506).” Mohsin ¶ 135. “The search may include . . . a search localized to a location of computing device 210.” Mohsin ¶ 81.
and provide a search result from among the plurality of search results through the keypad.
“Further, the technique of FIG. 5 includes outputting, by computing device 110, in place of at least a portion of graphical keyboard 116B, a visual representation of a search result of the one or more search results (508). For example, keyboard module 122 may output an indication of a visual representation of the one or more search results that include one or more card-based user interface element, each card-based user interface element being associated with a respective search result of the one or more search results.” Mohsin ¶ 136 (emphasis added to highlight that some embodiments output more than one results via more than one card-based user interface element, and thus, a “first” and “second” result).
Mohsin does not appear to explicitly disclose an integrated search that is based on a predicted plurality of applications.
Bhat, however, teaches a system configured to:
display the keypad on the display;
“Beginning with step 303, the search interface component 123 can obtain a search query from the search component 119. The search query in some examples can include a string of text that the user of the client device 106 input into the search component 119.” Bhat ¶ 60. And the user inputs the text into the search component 119 by interacting with “an input region that can facilitate a user inputting search queries.” Bhat ¶ 23.
predict a plurality of applications for an integrated search of the electronic device based on a keyword input through the keypad;
Prior to (or instead of) forwarding the search to all of the applications on the device, the search component 119 can instead “search an index for first application content 126a, second application content 126b, and third application content 126c that corresponds to the search query.” Bhat ¶ 72.
perform an integrated search of content according to a keyword based on the predicted plurality of applications;
“The search interface component 123 can then move to step 419, which is shown in FIG. 4B. As shown at step 419, the search interface component 123 can then generate and provide search results to the search component 119. The search results can identify the particular application content 126 that corresponds to the search query.” Bhat ¶ 73.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites the same method that the electronic device of claim 1 performs as part of its normal operation, and is therefore rejected according to the same findings and rationale as provided above for claim 1.
Claim 18
Mohsin and Bhat teach the method of claim 15, further comprising:
calling the keypad based on the detecting of the first input while displaying the execution screen,
Keyboard module 122 may be “invoked by an application or operating platform of computing device 110 any time an application or operating platform requires graphical keyboard input functionality.” Mohsin ¶ 21.
wherein the displaying of the keypad comprises controlling the display of the electronic device to display the keypad in at least a partial area of the execution screen,
“FIG. 5 includes outputting, by computing device 110, for display (e.g., at PSD 112), a graphical keyboard 116B comprising a plurality of keys 118A and a suggestion region 118B (502).” Mohsin ¶ 131. Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 1, the graphical keyboard 116B is displayed simultaneously with an “output region 116A,” which belongs to a messaging application executing on computing device 110. Mohsin ¶ 18.
wherein the method further comprises receiving a keyword and a search command as the second input while displaying the keypad through the display,
“The technique of FIG. 5 also includes determining, by computing device 110, based on a selection of suggestion region 118B or one or more keys from the plurality of keys 118A, a search query (504).” Mohsin ¶ 132.
wherein the performing comprises performing the smart search in
Moshin at least teaches that computing device 110 retrieves results by “transmitting, by computing device 110, the search query to a data service, and receiving, by computing device 110, from the data service, one or more search results based on the search query.” Moshin ¶ 135. This necessarily involves at least two applications (and therefore, a plurality), because the two applications involved are (1) the application that displays the keys 118A on the computing device 110, and (2) the search engine executing at the data service.
and wherein the method further comprises acquiring the search result results from the at least one application
As mentioned in the rejection of claim 6, step 506 further includes “receiving, by computing device 110, from the data service, one or more search results based on the search query.” Mohsin ¶ 135.
Mohsin does not necessarily perform the smart search in “the” plurality of applications, i.e., the same plurality of applications installed on the device, as mentioned in the parent claim.
Bhat, however, teaches:
receiving a keyword and a search command as the second input while displaying the keypad through the display,
“Beginning with step 303, the search interface component 123 can obtain a search query from the search component 119. The search query in some examples can include a string of text that the user of the client device 106 input into the search component 119.” Bhat ¶ 60. And the user inputs the text into the search component 119 by interacting with “an input region that can facilitate a user inputting search queries.” Bhat ¶ 23.
wherein the performing comprises performing the smart search in the plurality of applications based on the keyword,
“As indicated at step 316, the search interface component 123 can request the first application 116 a to search for first application content that corresponds to the search query. Similarly, the search interface component 123 can request the second application 116 b to search for second application content 126 b that corresponds to the search query, as shown at step 319. In addition, the search interface component 123 can request the third application 116 c to search for third application content 126 c that corresponds to the search query, as indicated at step 323.” Bhat ¶ 63.
and wherein the method further comprises acquiring the search result results from the at least one application among the plurality of applications.
“As shown at step 326, the search interface component 123 can then obtain one or more search results from the first application 116a, the second application 116b, and the third application 116c.” Bhat ¶ 64.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites the same method that the electronic device of claim 8 performs as part of its normal operation. As such, the aforementioned method claims are rejected according to the same findings and rationale as provided above for their corresponding device claims.
II. Mohsin, Bhat, and Huang teach claims 2–4, 13, 16, and 17.
Claims 2–4, 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mohsin in view of Bhat, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0083524 A1 (“Huang”).
Claim 2
Mohsin and Bhat teach the teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
classify the search results based on attributes of the contents in the search results when classifying the search result;
“The search results can represent application content 126 that corresponds to the search result. For example, the search result can identify the particular application content 126 as well as the application 116 to which the application content 126 corresponds. The search result can also represent metadata for the application 116, such as a file's name, creator, and creation data.” Bhat ¶ 64.
Neither reference explicitly discloses grouping the content based on their respective attributes.
Huang, however, teaches an electronic device configured to:
classify the search results based on attributes of the contents in the search results when classifying the search results;
“A search query including a selection of a collection of the multitude of collections may be received 734, where the selected collection is associated with an expressive intent metadata content association and where the search query is received 734 through the dynamic keyboard interface. A first candidate set of content items is determined 736 from the multitude of content items based on the expressive intent metadata content association associated with the one or more content items included in the candidate set.” Huang ¶ 87.
and generate a plurality of groups of the contents based on the classified search results, each of the plurality of groups including contents grouped per a respective attribute of content.
“The first candidate set of content items is then provided 738 in the dynamic keyboard interface in response to the search query, where the dynamic keyboard interface renders the first candidate set of content items on the mobile application on the mobile device.” Huang ¶ 87.
In addition to the first candidate set from the first category, the mobile application also returns results in groups that are responsive to the search and fall into distinct other categories. For example, as shown in FIG. 8B, “tab interface 804 may include an icon that navigates to user generated collections 810, an icon that navigates to emotive curated collections 812, an icon that navigates to expressive curated collections 814, an icon that navigates to trending media content items 816, and an icon that navigates to audio/visual curated content items 818.” Huang ¶ 89.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to group Bhat’s search results according to either their particular application, or according to their metadata, much like Huang teaches for its candidate items and various content collections. One would have been motivated to group Bhat’s search results in this way because Mohsin and Bhat’s interfaces, which lack this grouping feature, “are not suited to the increasing technological demands required to optimally share expressive content.” Huang ¶ 4.
Claim 3
Mohsin and Bhat teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
classify the search results based on attributes of the contents in the search results and attributes of the plurality of applications used when performing the search,
“The search results can represent application content 126 that corresponds to the search result. For example, the search result can identify the particular application content 126 as well as the application 116 to which the application content 126 corresponds. The search result can also represent metadata for the application 116, such as a file's name, creator, and creation data.” Bhat ¶ 64.
Neither reference explicitly discloses grouping the content based on their respective attributes.
Huang, however, teaches an electronic device configured to:
classify the search results based on attributes of the contents in the search results and attributes of the plurality of applications used when performing the search, and
“A search query including a selection of a collection of the multitude of collections may be received 734, where the selected collection is associated with an expressive intent metadata content association and where the search query is received 734 through the dynamic keyboard interface. A first candidate set of content items is determined 736 from the multitude of content items based on the expressive intent metadata content association associated with the one or more content items included in the candidate set.” Huang ¶ 87.
generate a plurality of groups of contents based on the classified search results, each of the plurality of groups including contents grouped per at least one of a respective attribute of content or a respective attribute of application.
“The first candidate set of content items is then provided 738 in the dynamic keyboard interface in response to the search query, where the dynamic keyboard interface renders the first candidate set of content items on the mobile application on the mobile device.” Huang ¶ 87.
In addition to the first candidate set from the first category, the mobile application also returns results in groups that are responsive to the search and fall into distinct other categories. For example, as shown in FIG. 8B, “tab interface 804 may include an icon that navigates to user generated collections 810, an icon that navigates to emotive curated collections 812, an icon that navigates to expressive curated collections 814, an icon that navigates to trending media content items 816, and an icon that navigates to audio/visual curated content items 818.” Huang ¶ 89.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to group Bhat’s search results according to either their particular application, or according to their metadata, much like Huang teaches for its candidate items and various content collections. One would have been motivated to group Bhat’s search results in this way because Mohsin and Bhat’s interfaces, which lack this grouping feature, “are not suited to the increasing technological demands required to optimally share expressive content.” Huang ¶ 4.
Claim 4
Mohsin, Bhat, and Huang teach the electronic device of claim 3,
wherein the contents are generated by the plurality of applications, and the attributes of the content contents are classified according to the plurality of applications.
“The search results can represent application content 126 that corresponds to the search result. For example, the search result can identify the particular application content 126 as well as the application 116 to which the application content 126 corresponds. The search result can also represent metadata for the application 116, such as a file's name, creator, and creation data.” Bhat ¶ 64.
Claim 13
Mohsin and Bhat teach the electronic device of claim 1, but neither explicitly use a “learning model trained using an artificial intelligence algorithm.
Huang, however, teaches an electronic device that performs nearly all of the functions of the electronic device of claim 1 (see Non-Final Office Action of January 20, 2026), wherein the processor is configured to:
provide an integrated search of content for each application, using a learning model trained using an artificial intelligence algorithm.
“A content associator module 108 may automatically generate one or more content associations for a media content item 104 in the media content management system 100 based on the attributes of the media content item 104. For example, machine learning techniques may be used by the content associator module 108 to determine relationships between media content items 104 and content associations stored in the content association store 118.” Huang ¶ 40.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Huang’s machine learning techniques to refine the search results gathered in Mohsin and Bhat’s disclosures. One would have been motivated to utilize a machine learning model based on the explicitly recognized “need[]” for “a solution for effectively identifying content that matches a user's expressive intent.” Huang ¶ 5.
Claims 16 and 17
Claims 16 and 17 recite the same method that the electronic device of claims 2 and 3 performs as part of its normal operation. As such, the aforementioned method claims are rejected according to the same findings and rationale as provided above for their corresponding device claims.
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 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights