DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-11, 13-15, 18-23, and 25-27 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
3. Claims 1-11, 13-15, 18-23, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 1, claim 1 has been amended to recite “…wherein an order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the second user interface element is determined based on: the presence information, and a service quality metric of each of the first subset of the applications or services…”. This limitation suggests that the ordering is based on both presence information AND a service quality metric. The examiner is unable to locate a teaching of this subject matter in the specification. In fact, the specification appears to teach that the ordering is based on presence information OR a service quality metric. For example, paragraph 00159 recites (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), OR any other criteria. (ii) and (iv) are with respect to presence information and service quality metrics. These elements are described in a set joined by “OR”. There does not appear to be any disclosure that indicates that a combination of (ii) and (iv) is basis for ordering, as required by the claim, as these are described as alternative (e.g. “OR”) bases for ordering.
In regard to claims 2-11, 13-15, 18, 21-23, and 25-27, claims 2-11, 13-15, 18, 21-23, and 25-27 depend from claim 1 and are rejected at least based on their dependency.
In regard to claims 19 and 20, claims 19 and 20 recite similar subject matter as claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
4. Claim 1-3, 7-11, 13-15, 18-23, 26, and 27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, and 11-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2 in view of Hamalainen et al. (US 2008/0059627 A1) and O’Shaughnessy et al. (US 2009/0274286 A1).
In regard to claim 1, claims 1, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2 anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 except for the recited “wherein causing the second user interface element to be modified comprises: determining that contact information for the recipient is accessible for a first subset of the applications or services, determining, for each of the first subset of the applications or services, presence information regarding the recipient, wherein the presence information indicates at least one of an availability or an unavailability of the recipient to receive messages using that application or service, and causing at least some of the first subset of the plurality of applications or services to be visually emphasized in the second user interface element based on the presence information, wherein an order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the second user interface element is determined based on the presence information”. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamalainen teaches determining that contact information for a recipient is accessible for a first subset of the applications or services (Fig. 4 and Paragraph 0029: contact database storing one or more communication accounts for contacting a recipient), determining, for each of the first subset of the applications or services, presence information regarding the recipient, wherein the presence information indicates at least one of an availability or an unavailability of the recipient to receive messages using that application or service (Paragraphs 0031-0032: presence information for each communication account), and causing at least some of the first subset of the plurality of applications or services to be visually emphasized in the second user interface element based on the presence information(Fig. 7 and Paragraph 0042 lines 16-34: each communication account identifier includes a presence status indicator to visually emphasize the presence for a respect communication account), and O’Shaughnessy teaches an order of presentation of a first subset of applications or services in a user interface element is determined based on presence information (Paragraph 0031, Paragraph 0033, Paragraph 0044, and Paragraph 0045 lines 1-12: the list of communication modes is ordered at least in part using presence information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of claims , 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2, Hamalainen, and O’Shaughnessy before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify claims , 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2 to include the determining that contact information for a recipient is accessible for a first subset of the applications or services, determining, for each of the first subset of the applications or services, presence information regarding the recipient, wherein the presence information indicates at least one of an availability or an unavailability of the recipient to receive messages using that application or service, and causing at least some of the first subset of the plurality of applications or services to be visually emphasized in the second user interface element based on the presence information of Hamalainen and the an order of presentation of a first subset of applications or services in a user interface element is determined based on presence information of O’Shaughnessy, in order to obtain wherein causing the second user interface element to be modified comprises: determining that contact information for the recipient is accessible for a first subset of the applications or services, determining, for each of the first subset of the applications or services, presence information regarding the recipient, wherein the presence information indicates at least one of an availability or an unavailability of the recipient to receive messages using that application or service, and causing at least some of the first subset of the plurality of applications or services to be visually emphasized in the second user interface element based on the presence information, wherein an order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the second user interface element is determined based on the presence information. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as integration of presence data into a list for contacting a party through different protocols, would have been obtained, as suggested by Hamalainen (Paragraph 0006 lines 5-8), avoiding initiating messages that are not immediately answerable by the desired party, would have been obtained, as suggested by Hamalainen (Paragraph 0041 lines 45-47), and ranking communication modes based on a likelihood that communication will be successful, would have been obtained, as suggested by O’Shaughnessy (Paragraph 0009 and Paragraph 0048).
In regard to claim 2, claim 2 is anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2.
In regard to claim 3, claim 3 is anticipated by claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2.
In regard to claim 7, claim 7 is anticipated by claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2.
In regard to claim 8, claim 8 is anticipated by claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2.
In regard to claim 9, claim 9 is anticipated by claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2.
In regard to claim 10, claim 10 is anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2.
In regard to claim 11, claim 11 is anticipated by claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2.
In regard to claim 13, Hamalainen further discloses determining, based on the presence information, that the recipient is available to receive messages using at least some of the first subset of the plurality of applications or services (Paragraph 0031 and Paragraph 0032 lines 1-2: the presence information indicates whether the party is available). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein causing the second user interface element to be modified comprises: determining, based on the presence information, that the recipient is available to receive messages using at least some of the first subset of the plurality of applications or services. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as integration of presence data into a list for contacting a party through different protocols, would have been obtained, as suggested by Hamalainen (Paragraph 0006 lines 5-8) and avoiding initiating messages that are not immediately answerable by the desired party, would have been obtained, as suggested by Hamalainen (Paragraph 0041 lines 45-47).
In regard to claim 14, claim 14 is anticipated by claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2 in combination with claims 1, 12, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2, Hamalainen et al. (US 2008/0059627 A1), and O’Shaughnessy et al. (US 2009/0274286 A1) (The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein in its entiriety).
In regard to claim 15, claim 15 is anticipated by claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2.
In regard to claim 18, claim 18 is anticipated by claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2.
In regard to claim 19, claims 1, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2 anticipates all the limitations of claim 19 except for the recited “wherein causing the second user interface element to be modified comprises: determining that contact information for the recipient is accessible for a first subset of the applications or services, determining, for each of the first subset of the applications or services, presence information regarding the recipient, wherein the presence information indicates at least one of an availability or an unavailability of the recipient to receive messages using that application or service, and causing at least some of the first subset of the plurality of applications or services to be visually emphasized in the second user interface element based on the presence information, wherein an order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the second user interface element is determined based on the presence information”. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamalainen teaches determining that contact information for a recipient is accessible for a first subset of the applications or services (Fig. 4 and Paragraph 0029: contact database storing one or more communication accounts for contacting a recipient), determining, for each of the first subset of the applications or services, presence information regarding the recipient, wherein the presence information indicates at least one of an availability or an unavailability of the recipient to receive messages using that application or service (Paragraphs 0031-0032: presence information for each communication account), and causing at least some of the first subset of the plurality of applications or services to be visually emphasized in the second user interface element based on the presence information(Fig. 7 and Paragraph 0042 lines 16-34: each communication account identifier includes a presence status indicator to visually emphasize the presence for a respect communication account), and O’Shaughnessy teaches an order of presentation of a first subset of applications or services in a user interface element is determined based on presence information (Paragraph 0031, Paragraph 0033, Paragraph 0044, and Paragraph 0045 lines 1-12: the list of communication modes is ordered at least in part using presence information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of claims 1, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2, Hamalainen, and O’Shaughnessy before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify claims 1, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2 to include the determining that contact information for a recipient is accessible for a first subset of the applications or services, determining, for each of the first subset of the applications or services, presence information regarding the recipient, wherein the presence information indicates at least one of an availability or an unavailability of the recipient to receive messages using that application or service, and causing at least some of the first subset of the plurality of applications or services to be visually emphasized in the second user interface element based on the presence information of Hamalainen and the an order of presentation of a first subset of applications or services in a user interface element is determined based on presence information of O’Shaughnessy, in order to obtain wherein causing the second user interface element to be modified comprises: determining that contact information for the recipient is accessible for a first subset of the applications or services, determining, for each of the first subset of the applications or services, presence information regarding the recipient, wherein the presence information indicates at least one of an availability or an unavailability of the recipient to receive messages using that application or service, and causing at least some of the first subset of the plurality of applications or services to be visually emphasized in the second user interface element based on the presence information, wherein an order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the second user interface element is determined based on the presence information. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as integration of presence data into a list for contacting a party through different protocols, would have been obtained, as suggested by Hamalainen (Paragraph 0006 lines 5-8), avoiding initiating messages that are not immediately answerable by the desired party, would have been obtained, as suggested by Hamalainen (Paragraph 0041 lines 45-47), and ranking communication modes based on a likelihood that communication will be successful, would have been obtained, as suggested by O’Shaughnessy (Paragraph 0009 and Paragraph 0048).
In regard to claim 20, claims 1, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2 anticipates all the limitations of claim 20 except for the recited “wherein causing the second user interface element to be modified comprises: determining that contact information for the recipient is accessible for a first subset of the applications or services, determining, for each of the first subset of the applications or services, presence information regarding the recipient, wherein the presence information indicates at least one of an availability or an unavailability of the recipient to receive messages using that application or service, and causing at least some of the first subset of the plurality of applications or services to be visually emphasized in the second user interface element based on the presence information, wherein an order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the second user interface element is determined based on the presence information”. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamalainen teaches determining that contact information for a recipient is accessible for a first subset of the applications or services (Fig. 4 and Paragraph 0029: contact database storing one or more communication accounts for contacting a recipient), determining, for each of the first subset of the applications or services, presence information regarding the recipient, wherein the presence information indicates at least one of an availability or an unavailability of the recipient to receive messages using that application or service (Paragraphs 0031-0032: presence information for each communication account), and causing at least some of the first subset of the plurality of applications or services to be visually emphasized in the second user interface element based on the presence information(Fig. 7 and Paragraph 0042 lines 16-34: each communication account identifier includes a presence status indicator to visually emphasize the presence for a respect communication account), and O’Shaughnessy teaches an order of presentation of a first subset of applications or services in a user interface element is determined based on presence information (Paragraph 0031, Paragraph 0033, Paragraph 0044, and Paragraph 0045 lines 1-12: the list of communication modes is ordered at least in part using presence information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of 1, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2, Hamalainen, and O’Shaughnessy before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify 1, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2 to include the determining that contact information for a recipient is accessible for a first subset of the applications or services, determining, for each of the first subset of the applications or services, presence information regarding the recipient, wherein the presence information indicates at least one of an availability or an unavailability of the recipient to receive messages using that application or service, and causing at least some of the first subset of the plurality of applications or services to be visually emphasized in the second user interface element based on the presence information of Hamalainen and an order of presentation of a first subset of applications or services in a user interface element is determined based on presence information of O’Shaughnessy, in order to obtain wherein causing the second user interface element to be modified comprises: determining that contact information for the recipient is accessible for a first subset of the applications or services, determining, for each of the first subset of the applications or services, presence information regarding the recipient, wherein the presence information indicates at least one of an availability or an unavailability of the recipient to receive messages using that application or service, and causing at least some of the first subset of the plurality of applications or services to be visually emphasized in the second user interface element based on the presence information, wherein an order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the second user interface element is determined based on the presence information. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as integration of presence data into a list for contacting a party through different protocols, would have been obtained, as suggested by Hamalainen (Paragraph 0006 lines 5-8), avoiding initiating messages that are not immediately answerable by the desired party, would have been obtained, as suggested by Hamalainen (Paragraph 0041 lines 45-47), and ranking communication modes based on a likelihood that communication will be successful, would have been obtained, as suggested by O’Shaughnessy (Paragraph 0009 and Paragraph 0048).
In regard to claim 21, Hamalainen further discloses wherein for each of a first subset of applications or services, the presence information indicates a status of the recipient with respect to that application or service, wherein with status is one of:(i) a first status representing that the recipient is at least one of available or active with respect to that application or service, or (ii) a second status representing that the recipient is at least one of offline, busy, or away with respect to that application or service (Paragraph 0031 and Paragraph 0032 lines 1-3: presence information indicates status including available or off-line with respect to each communication account). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein for each of the first subset of the applications or services, the presence information indicates a status of the recipient with respect to that application or service, wherein with status is one of:(i) a first status representing that the recipient is at least one of available or active with respect to that application or service, or (ii) a second status representing that the recipient is at least one of offline, busy, or away with respect to that application or service. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as integration of presence data into a list for contacting a party through different protocols, would have been obtained, as suggested by Hamalainen (Paragraph 0006 lines 5-8) and avoiding initiating messages that are not immediately answerable by the desired party, would have been obtained, as suggested by Hamalainen (Paragraph 0041 lines 45-47).
In regard to claim 22, O’Shaughnessy further discloses wherein the order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the user interface element is further determined based on a frequency of use each of the first subset of the applications or services by the user in communicating with a recipient (Paragraph 0045 lines 14-16, Paragraph 0061, and Paragraph 0062: additionally making use of historical data information including number of times over a time period for each mode of communication). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the second user interface element is further determined based on a frequency of use each of the first subset of the applications or services by the user in communicating with the recipient. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as ranking communication modes based on a likelihood that communication will be successful, would have been obtained, as suggested by O’Shaughnessy (Paragraph 0009 and Paragraph 0048).
In regard to claim 23, O’Shaughnessy further discloses wherein the order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the user interface element is further determined based on a recency of use each of the first subset of the applications or services by the user in communicating with a recipient (Paragraph 0045 lines 14-16, Paragraph 0045 lines 20-22, Paragraph 0061, and Paragraph 0093: additionally making use of historical data information including recent call history). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the second user interface element is further determined based on a recency of use each of the first subset of the applications or services by the user in communicating with the recipient. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as ranking communication modes based on a likelihood that communication will be successful, would have been obtained, as suggested by O’Shaughnessy (Paragraph 0009 and Paragraph 0048).
In regard to claim 26, claim 26 is anticipated by claims 1, 16, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2.
In regard to claim 27, claim 27 is anticipated by claims 1, 16, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2.
5. Claim 4-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2 in view of Hamalainen et al. (US 2008/0059627 A1), O’Shaughnessy et al. (US 2009/0274286 A1), and Yang et al. (US 2016/0065509 A1).
In regard to claim 4, claims 1, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2 in view of Hamalainen and O’Shaughnessy fails to disclose wherein causing the electronic device to present the user interface comprises: causing the electronic device to present the user interface using a touch sensitive display panel. However, Yang, which teaches a wearable device similar to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2 teaches wherein causing the electronic device to present the user interface comprises: causing the electronic device to present the user interface using a touch sensitive display panel (Paragraph 0007: the device has a touch-sensitive display). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to present the user interface using a touch sensitive display as utilizing touch-sensitive displays with wearable devices is well-known in the state of the art.
In regard to claim 5, claims 1, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2 in view of Hamalainen and O’Shaughnessy fails to disclose wherein at least some of the one or more processors are included in the electronic device. However, Yang, which teaches a wearable device similar to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2 teaches wherein at least some of the one or more processors are included in the electronic device (Fig. 5B, Paragraph 0007, and Paragraph 0170: the device has one or more processors). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to include the one or more processors in the electronic device as including processors in wearable devices is well-known in the state of the art.
In regard to claim 6, claims 1, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2 in view of Hamalainen and O’Shaughnessy fails to disclose wherein at least some of the one or more processors are remote from the electronic device. However, Yang, which teaches a wearable device similar to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11899911 B2 teaches wherein at least some of the one or more processors are remote from the electronic device (Paragraph 0252: the electronic device utilizes a companion telephone or laptop device to send the message. Telephone and laptop devices that send messages inherently include a processor that performs functions to send the message and therefore one or more remote processors from the electronic device). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to provide one or more processors remote from the electronic device, as wearable devices typically have reduced processing power and therefore a companion device with a processor advantageously allows additional processing to be performed outside of the wearable device thereby saving the reduced processing power of the wearable devices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-11, 13-15, 18-23, 25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2016/0065509 A1) and further in view of Seol et al. (US 2016/0227019 A1), Hamalainen et al. (US 2008/0059627 A1), O’Shaughnessy et al. (US 2009/0274286 A1), and Turakhia (US 2014/0201293 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Yang discloses a method comprising (Paragraphs 0007-0009, Paragraph 0170, and Paragraph 0172):
causing, by one or more processors, a user interface for composing a message to be presented to a user, wherein causing the user interface to be presented comprises causing a concurrent presentation of: a first user interface element configured to present a draft of the message (Fig. 6A, Paragraph 0193, and Paragraph 0194: an interface for composing a new electronic message including presenting a message body for the new message);
receiving, by the one or more processors, a first user input indicating a recipient of the message; responsive to receiving the first user input: causing, by the one or more processors, at least the recipient to be presented in the first user interface element (Fig. 6C, Paragraph 0194, and Paragraphs 0233-0237: recipient is added to the new electronic message and displayed in the interface for composing a new electronic message);
and causing, by the one or more processors, the message to be transmitted to the recipient (Paragraphs 0251-0252: the electronic message is transmitted to the recipient).
While Yang teaches causing, by one or more processors, a user interface for composing a message to be presented to a user, wherein causing the user interface to be presented comprises causing a concurrent presentation of: a first user interface element configured to present a draft of the message, receiving, by the one or more processors, a first user input indicating a recipient of the message, and causing, by the one or more processors, the message to be transmitted to the recipient, they fail to show a second user interface element configured to present a plurality of applications or services for transmitting the message; causing, by the one or more processors, the second user interface element to be modified based on the recipient; subsequent to receiving the first user input, receiving, by the one or more processors, a second user input indicating a selection of a first application or service from the plurality of applications or services presented in the second user interface element; and subsequent to receiving the second user input, causing, by the one or more processors, the message to be transmitted to the recipient using the first application or service, as recited in the claims. Seol teaches composing a message and a device similar to that of Yang. In addition, Seol further teaches
a user interface element configured to present a plurality of applications or services for transmitting a message (Paragraph 0096: tab menu of message types);
causing the user interface element to be modified based on a selected recipient of the message (Fig. 5 elements 503-507, Fig. 6 elements 603-607, Paragraph 0090, Paragraph 0103, Paragraphs 0117-0120, Paragraphs 0136-0138, Paragraph 0152, Paragraph 0154 lines 10-15, and Paragraphs 0161-0163: the tab menu is modified to include message types based on a selected recipient by determining history of communication with a selected recipient and/or stored contact information with the selected recipient);
subsequent to selecting the recipient of the message, receiving, a user input indicating a selection of a first application or service from the plurality of applications or services presented in the user interface element (Fig. 5 element 509, Fig. 6 element 609, Paragraph 0093, Paragraph 0124, Paragraph 0142, Paragraph 0150, and Paragraph 0161: the recipient is selected, the tab menu is modified according to the recipient, and the user selects one of the tabs in the tab menu for a desired message type);
and subsequent to receiving the user input, causing the message to be transmitted to the recipient of the message using the first application or service (Fig. 5 element 513, Fig. 6 element 615, Paragraph 0095, Paragraph 0127, and Paragraph 0145: the message is transmitted according to the selected tab and corresponding message type).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yang and Seol before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the causing, by one or more processors, a user interface for composing a message to be presented to a user, wherein causing the user interface to be presented comprises causing a concurrent presentation of: a first user interface element configured to present a draft of the message, receiving, by the one or more processors, a first user input indicating a recipient of the message, and causing, by the one or more processors, the message to be transmitted to the recipient taught by Yang to include a user interface element configured to present a plurality of applications or services for transmitting a message, causing the user interface element to be modified based on a selected recipient of the message, subsequent to selecting the recipient of the message, receiving, a user input indicating a selection of a first application or service from the plurality of applications or services presented in the user interface element, and subsequent to receiving the user input, causing the message to be transmitted to the recipient of the message using the first application or service of Seol, in order to obtain causing, by one or more processors, a user interface for composing a message to be presented to a user, wherein causing the user interface to be presented comprises causing a concurrent presentation of: a first user interface element configured to present a draft of the message, a second user interface element configured to present a plurality of applications or services for transmitting the message; causing, by the one or more processors, the second user interface element to be modified based on the recipient; subsequent to receiving the first user input, receiving, by the one or more processors, a second user input indicating a selection of a first application or service from the plurality of applications or services presented in the second user interface element; and subsequent to receiving the second user input, causing, by the one or more processors, the message to be transmitted to the recipient using the first application or service. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as facilitating selection or change of one message type of various message types in one execution screen, as suggested by Seol (Paragraph 0128).
While Yang and Seol teach causing, by the one or more processors, the second user interface element to be modified based on the recipient, they fail to show the wherein causing the second user interface element to be modified comprises: determining that contact information for the recipient is accessible for a first subset of the applications or services, determining, for each of the first subset of the applications or services, presence information regarding the recipient, wherein the presence information indicates at least one of an availability or an unavailability of the recipient to receive messages using that application or service, and causing at least some of the first subset of the plurality of applications or services to be visually emphasized in the second user interface element based on the presence information, as recited in the claims. Hamalainen teaches a plurality of applications or services for transmitting a message similar to that of Yang and Seol. In addition, Hamalainen further teaches
determining that contact information for a recipient is accessible for a first subset of the applications or services (Fig. 4 and Paragraph 0029: contact database storing one or more communication accounts for contacting a recipient), determining, for each of the first subset of the applications or services, presence information regarding the recipient, wherein the presence information indicates at least one of an availability or an unavailability of the recipient to receive messages using that application or service (Paragraphs 0031-0032: presence information for each communication account), and causing at least some of the first subset of the plurality of applications or services to be visually emphasized in the second user interface element based on the presence information(Fig. 7 and Paragraph 0042 lines 16-34: each communication account identifier includes a presence status indicator to visually emphasize the presence for a respective communication account).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yang, Seol, and Hamalainen before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the causing, by the one or more processors, the second user interface element to be modified based on the recipient taught by Yang and Seol to include the determining that contact information for a recipient is accessible for a first subset of the applications or services, determining, for each of the first subset of the applications or services, presence information regarding the recipient, wherein the presence information indicates at least one of an availability or an unavailability of the recipient to receive messages using that application or service, and causing at least some of the first subset of the plurality of applications or services to be visually emphasized in the second user interface element based on the presence information of Hamalainen, in order to obtain wherein causing the second user interface element to be modified comprises: determining that contact information for the recipient is accessible for a first subset of the applications or services, determining, for each of the first subset of the applications or services, presence information regarding the recipient, wherein the presence information indicates at least one of an availability or an unavailability of the recipient to receive messages using that application or service, and causing at least some of the first subset of the plurality of applications or services to be visually emphasized in the second user interface element based on the presence information. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as integration of presence data into a list for contacting a party through different protocols, would have been obtained, as suggested by Hamalainen (Paragraph 0006 lines 5-8) and avoiding initiating messages that are not immediately answerable by the desired party, would have been obtained, as suggested by Hamalainen (Paragraph 0041 lines 45-47).
While the combination of Yang, Seol, and Hamalainen teaches a second user interface element configured to present a plurality of applications or services for transmitting the message; causing, by the one or more processors, the second user interface element to be modified based on the recipient; determining that contact information for the recipient is accessible for a first subset of the applications or services, determining, for each of the first subset of the applications or services, presence information regarding the recipient, wherein the presence information indicates at least one of an availability or an unavailability of the recipient to receive messages using that application or service, and causing at least some of the first subset of the plurality of applications or services to be visually emphasized in the second user interface element based on the presence information, they fail to show the wherein an order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the second user interface element is determined based on the presence information, as recited in the claims. O’Shaughnessy teaches present a plurality of applications or services and presence information similar to that of Yang, Seol, and Hamalainen. In addition, O’Shaughnessy further teaches
an order of presentation of a first subset of applications or services in a user interface element is determined based on presence information (Paragraph 0031, Paragraph 0033, Paragraph 0044, and Paragraph 0045 lines 1-12: the list of communication modes is ordered at least in part using presence information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yang, Seol, Hamalainen, and O’Shaughnessy before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the second user interface element configured to present a plurality of applications or services for transmitting the message and causing, by the one or more processors, the second user interface element to be modified based on the recipient taught by the combination of Yang, Seol, and Hamalainen to include the an order of presentation of a first subset of applications or services in a user interface element is determined based on presence information of O’Shaughnessy, in order to obtain wherein an order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the second user interface element is determined based on the presence information. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as ranking communication modes based on a likelihood that communication will be successful, would have been obtained, as suggested by O’Shaughnessy (Paragraph 0009 and Paragraph 0048).
While the combination of Yang, Seol, Hamalainen, and O’Shaughnessy teaches wherein an order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the second user interface element is determined based on the presence information, they fail to show the a service quality metric of each of the first subset of the applications or services, wherein the service quality metric of each of the first subset of the applications or services is determined based on at least one of a speed or a latency associated with each of the first subset of the applications or services, as recited in the claims. Turakhia teaches communication services similar to that of Yang, Seol, Hamalainen, and O’Shaughnessy. In addition, Turakhia further teaches
sorting within a list, available communication services, based on quality of service, including a score indicative of delivery speed (Paragraph 0016 lines 1-3 and lines 21-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yang, Seol, Hamalainen, O’Shaughnessy, and Turakhia before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the wherein an order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the second user interface element is determined based on the presence information taught by the combination of Yang, Seol, Hamalainen, and O’Shaughnessy to include the sorting within a list, available communication services, based on quality of service, including a score indicative of delivery speed of Turakhia, in order to obtain wherein an order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the second user interface element is determined based on: the presence information, and a service quality metric of each of the first subset of the applications or services, wherein the service quality metric of each of the first subset of the applications or services is determined based on at least one of a speed or a latency associated with each of the first subset of the applications or services. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as facilitating selection of a service for providing a message would have been obtained, as suggested by Turakhia (Paragraph 0060 lines 1-3).
In regard to claim 2, Yang discloses wherein causing the user interface to be presented to the user comprises: causing an electronic device being worn by the user to present the user interface (Paragraph 0007: the device is user-wearable).
In regard to claim 4, Yang discloses wherein causing the electronic device to present the user interface comprises: causing the electronic device to present the user interface using a touch sensitive display panel (Paragraph 0007: the device has a touch-sensitive display).
In regard to claim 5, Yang discloses wherein at least some of the one or more processors are included in the electronic device (Fig. 5B, Paragraph 0007, and Paragraph 0170: the device has one or more processors).
In regard to claim 6, Yang discloses wherein at least some of the one or more processors are remote from the electronic device (Paragraph 0252: the electronic device utilizes a companion telephone or laptop device to send the message. Telephone and laptop devices that send messages inherently include a processor that performs functions to send the message and therefore one or more remote processors from the electronic device).
In regard to claim 7, Yang discloses wherein causing the message to be transmitted to the recipient comprises: causing an electronic device being worn by the user to transmit the message to the recipient (Paragraph 0007 and Paragraph 0252: the device is wearable and the device transmits the message by direct wireless WIFI communication or direct wireless cellular communication). As, Yang is modified by Seol to teach causing, by the one or more processors, the message to be transmitted to the recipient using the first application or service (see the Rejection of claim 1 which is incorporated herein in its entirety), the combination further teaches wherein causing the message to be transmitted to the recipient using the first application or service comprises: causing an electronic device being worn by the user to transmit the message to the recipient using the first application or service. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as facilitating selection or change of one message type of various message types in one execution screen, as suggested by Seol (Paragraph 0128).
In regard to claim 8, Yang discloses wherein at least one of the first user input or the second user input comprises data representing a command spoken by the user (Fig. 6C and Paragraph 0238-0239: user provides first input indicating recipient through speech input).
In regard to claim 9, Yang discloses wherein at least one of the first user input or the second user input comprises data representing a gesture performed by the user (Fig. 6C, Paragraph 0062 and Paragraph 0236: user provides first input indicating recipient through touch input such as a finger tap gesture).
In regard to claim 10, Yang discloses wherein at least one of the first user input or the second user input comprises data representing an interaction with the user interface by the user (Fig. 6A, Fig. 6C, Paragraph 0233, Paragraph 0236, and Paragraph 0239: user interacts with user interface for the first input of indicating a recipient).
In regard to claim 11, Seol further discloses wherein the plurality of applications or services comprises at least one of: an e-mail application or service, a text message application or service, a chat application or service, or a collaboration application or service (Paragraph 0090 lines 7-13 and Paragraph 0119: SMS and/or IM). Accordingly, the combination further teaches the above. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as facilitating selection or change of one message type of various message types in one execution screen, as suggested by Seol (Paragraph 0128).
In regard to claim 13, Hamalainen further discloses determining, based on the presence information, that the recipient is available to receive messages using at least some of the first subset of the plurality of applications or services (Paragraph 0031 and Paragraph 0032 lines 1-2: the presence information indicates whether the party is available). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein causing the second user interface element to be modified comprises: determining, based on the presence information, that the recipient is available to receive messages using at least some of the first subset of the plurality of applications or services. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as integration of presence data into a list for contacting a party through different protocols, would have been obtained, as suggested by Hamalainen (Paragraph 0006 lines 5-8) and avoiding initiating messages that are not immediately answerable by the desired party, would have been obtained, as suggested by Hamalainen (Paragraph 0041 lines 45-47).
In regard to claim 14, Hamalainen further discloses determining an unavailability of the recipient to receive messages using a second subset of the plurality of applications or services; and at least one of: causing the second subset of the plurality of applications or services to be removed from the second user interface element, or causing the second subset of the plurality of applications or services to be visually deemphasized in the second user interface element (Paragraph 0031, Paragraph 0032 lines 1-2, and Paragraph 0042 lines 31-34: account may not appear if presence indicates non-availability). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein causing the second user interface element to be modified comprises: determining an unavailability of the recipient to receive messages using a second subset of the plurality of applications or services; and at least one of: causing the second subset of the plurality of applications or services to be removed from the second user interface element, or causing the second subset of the plurality of applications or services to be visually deemphasized in the second user interface element. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as integration of presence data into a list for contacting a party through different protocols, would have been obtained, as suggested by Hamalainen (Paragraph 0006 lines 5-8) and avoiding initiating messages that are not immediately answerable by the desired party, would have been obtained, as suggested by Hamalainen (Paragraph 0041 lines 45-47).
In regard to claim 15, Seol further discloses wherein causing the second user interface element to be modified comprises: obtaining historical data comprising previous communications between the user and the recipient; determining that the user and the recipient previously communicated with one another using a particular application or service from among the plurality of application or service; and causing that application or service to be visually emphasized in the second user interface element (Paragraphs 0117-0120 and Paragraph 0122: history of communication with recipient is obtained, a type of message recently transmitted with the recipient is determined, and a tab in the tab menu corresponding to the type of message recently transmitted with recipient is activated by highlighting). Accordingly, the combination further teaches the above. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as facilitating selection or change of one message type of various message types in one execution screen, as suggested by Seol (Paragraph 0128).
In regard to claim 18, Seol further discloses wherein causing the second user interface element to be modified comprises at least one of: causing an order of the plurality of applications or services to be modified, filtering the plurality of applications or services, causing at least some of the plurality of applications or services to be visually emphasized, or causing at least some of the plurality of applications or services to be visually deemphasized (Paragraphs 0117-0120 and Paragraph 0122: a tab in the tab menu corresponding to the type of message recently transmitted with recipient is activated by highlighting). Accordingly, the combination further teaches the above. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as facilitating selection or change of one message type of various message types in one execution screen, as suggested by Seol (Paragraph 0128).
In regard to claim 19, system claim 19 corresponds generally to method claim 1 and recites similar features in system form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claim 20, medium claim 20 corresponds generally to method claim 1 and recites similar features in medium form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claim 21, Hamalainen further discloses wherein for each of a first subset of applications or services, the presence information indicates a status of the recipient with respect to that application or service, wherein with status is one of:(i) a first status representing that the recipient is at least one of available or active with respect to that application or service, or (ii) a second status representing that the recipient is at least one of offline, busy, or away with respect to that application or service (Paragraph 0031 and Paragraph 0032 lines 1-3: presence information indicates status including available or off-line with respect to each communication account). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein for each of the first subset of the applications or services, the presence information indicates a status of the recipient with respect to that application or service, wherein with status is one of:(i) a first status representing that the recipient is at least one of available or active with respect to that application or service, or (ii) a second status representing that the recipient is at least one of offline, busy, or away with respect to that application or service. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as integration of presence data into a list for contacting a party through different protocols, would have been obtained, as suggested by Hamalainen (Paragraph 0006 lines 5-8) and avoiding initiating messages that are not immediately answerable by the desired party, would have been obtained, as suggested by Hamalainen (Paragraph 0041 lines 45-47).
In regard to claim 22, O’Shaughnessy further discloses wherein the order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the user interface element is further determined based on a frequency of use each of the first subset of the applications or services by the user in communicating with a recipient (Paragraph 0045 lines 14-16, Paragraph 0061, and Paragraph 0062: additionally making use of historical data information including number of times over a time period for each mode of communication). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the second user interface element is further determined based on a frequency of use each of the first subset of the applications or services by the user in communicating with the recipient. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as ranking communication modes based on a likelihood that communication will be successful, would have been obtained, as suggested by O’Shaughnessy (Paragraph 0009 and Paragraph 0048).
In regard to claim 23, O’Shaughnessy further discloses wherein the order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the user interface element is further determined based on a recency of use each of the first subset of the applications or services by the user in communicating with a recipient (Paragraph 0045 lines 14-16, Paragraph 0045 lines 20-22, Paragraph 0061, and Paragraph 0093: additionally making use of historical data information including recent call history). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the second user interface element is further determined based on a recency of use each of the first subset of the applications or services by the user in communicating with the recipient. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as ranking communication modes based on a likelihood that communication will be successful, would have been obtained, as suggested by O’Shaughnessy (Paragraph 0009 and Paragraph 0048).
In regard to claim 25, the combination further discloses wherein the order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the second user interface element is determined based on the speed associated with each of the first subset of the applications or services (The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein in its entirety. As described, Turakhia teaches sorting within a list, available communication services, based on quality of service, including a score indicative of delivery speed).
In regard to claim 27, Turakhia further discloses sorting within a list, available communication services, based on quality of service, including a score indicative of reliability (Paragraph 0016 lines 1-3 and lines 21-28). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the second user interface element is determined based on a reliability associated with each of the first subset of the applications or services. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as facilitating selection of a service for providing a message would have been obtained, as suggested by Turakhia (Paragraph 0060 lines 1-3).
7. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2016/0065509 A1), Seol et al. (US 2016/0227019 A1), Hamalainen et al. (US 2008/0059627 A1), O’Shaughnessy et al. (US 2009/0274286 A1), Turakhia (US 2014/0201293 A1), and further in view of Li et al. (US 2016/0261834 A1).
In regard to claim 3, while Yang teaches causing an electronic device being worn by the user to present the user interface, they fail to show the using a laser projector, as recited in the claims. Li teaches an electronic device similar to that of Yang. In addition, Li further teaches
utilizing a laser projector to display information (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0039, and Paragraph 0043)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yang, Seol, Hamalainen, O’Shaughnessy, Turakhia, and Li before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the causing an electronic device being worn by the user to present the user interface taught by Yang to include the utilizing a laser projector to display information of Li, in order to obtain wherein causing the electronic device to present the user interface comprises: causing the electronic device to present the user interface using a laser projector. It would have been obvious for one to utilize such a combination as a simple substitution to obtain predictable results. Simply substituting Yang’s display to present the user interface with the laser projector taught Li would predictably result in causing an electronic device being worn by the user to present the user interface.
8. Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2016/0065509 A1), Seol et al. (US 2016/0227019 A1), Hamalainen et al. (US 2008/0059627 A1), O’Shaughnessy et al. (US 2009/0274286 A1), Turakhia (US 2014/0201293 A1), and further in view of Schwoerer et al. (US 2023/0022762 A1).
In regard to claim 26, while the combination of Yang, Seol, Hamalainen, O’Shaughnessy, and Turakhia teaches wherein an order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the second user interface element is determined based on: the presence information, and a service quality metric of each of the first subset of the applications or services, they fail to show the latency as recited in the claims. Schwoerer teaches a service quality metric similar to that of Turakhia. In addition, Schwoerer further teaches
a service quality metric including end-to-end latency for ordering different communication modes (Paragraph 0015 and Paragraph 0062 lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yang, Seol, Hamalainen, O’Shaughnessy, Turakhia, and Schwoerer before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the wherein an order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the second user interface element is determined based on: the presence information, and a service quality metric of each of the first subset of the applications or services taught by the combination of Yang, Seol, Hamalainen, O’Shaughnessy, and Turakhia to include the service quality metric including end-to-end latency of Schwoerer, in order to obtain wherein the order of presentation of the first subset of the applications or services in the second user interface element is determined based on the latency associated with each of the first subset of the applications or services. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as utilizing known service quality metrics. Turakhia provides open-ended examples of service quality metrics (e.g. reliability score, delivery speed score), see at least Paragraph 0016 lines 21-28). Accordingly, as the examples are open-ended, other known service quality metrics would suffice in certain situations. Therefore, one skilled in the art would recognize that the example service quality metrics taught by Turakhia could be substituted with other known service quality metrics, such as latency as described by Schwoerer, to obtain predictable results of sorting based on a service quality metric.
Response to Arguments
9. The arguments with respect to the Double Patenting rejections have been fully considered but are moot in view of the claim amendments and new grounds of rejections. The Double Patenting rejections have been modified to reflect the amended subject matter in each of the pending claims.
10. The arguments regarding the prior art rejections have been fully considered but are moot in view of the claim amendments and new grounds of rejections. The amendments to the claims have changed the scope of the claims, as previously presented, which are now rejected over the new grounds of rejections presented in this office action.
Conclusion
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571)272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
13. 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.
/Nicholas Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
