DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 11/14/2025.
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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 11/14/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of patent US 11,922,010 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Specification
The new title of the invention filed on 11/14/2025 is acceptable.
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1, 12, and 20 are independent, and are recently amended.
Claim Interpretation
Concerning the claim language of claims 1, 12 and 20, the following limitation(s) is/are in intended use format, which does not move to distinguish over the prior art (e.g., see In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)):
to prioritize interaction with the media content item
to deprioritize interaction with the media content item
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snider; Lindsay et al. (hereinafter Snider – US 20170359277 A1), in view of and Wagner; Guido et al. (hereinafter Wagner – US 20150112752 A1), and Kobayashi; Satoshi et al. (hereinafter Kobayashi – US 20210275919 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Snider teaches: (fig. 7)
A method, comprising:
receiving, by a device, a media content item (an apparatus receives messages, Abstract and ¶ 42. see device 600 in fig. 6. The messages are, for example, email, text, or social media messages, ¶ 6, and may include elements like links to other files, such as documentations, ¶ 77. Herein, because a medium [plural form “media”] is a channel, tool, or technology used to transmit information from a sender to a receiver, any message, its text, links, and/or attachments are considered media content items because they are the specific, structured information that the medium is "carrying" or delivering. Furthermore, when the message is transformed by a reply development circuit into different parts, the parts related to or containing the question(s) in the received message(s) are also considered “received” media content items, e.g., links and or non-editable blocks used to reiterate the received question(s), ¶¶ 62, 77 and 82)
associated with at least one type of context; (the message is associated with a relationship between a sender and recipient associated with a priority level [type of context], ¶¶ 39, 88 and 114)
determining whether the at least one type of context corresponds to a prioritized type of context or to a non-prioritized type of context, (a priority subsystem determines urgency of the sender and sender's relative importance to recipient, ¶ 29, e.g., determining whether or not the sender of a message is the “most important sender” [corresponds to a prioritized type of context or to a non-prioritized type of context], ¶ 88. The instant original claim 1 recited the “context” is “prioritized relative to other types of contexts”. This is instructive in understanding the appropriate interpretation of “prioritized type” or “non-prioritized type” of contexts, as. Here, a prioritized type is interpreted as having a higher priority than another context, which can be considered “non-prioritized”. E.g., an item with low priority is considered "non-prioritized" relative to higher-priority items because it is can be deferred, postponed, or allocated minimal resources, to ensure that critical, urgent tasks are addressed first.)
the prioritized type of context and the non-prioritized type of context having been specified by an administrator[…];
displaying, on a screen of the device and upon determining that the at least one type of context corresponds to the prioritized type of context, the media content item together with a reply element in a first format, (a reply for the content in the message is developed by presenting the content of the message, e.g., in a questionnaire format with editable and non-editable areas or fields, including fields for inserting user answers or user selection of alternative answers [displaying, on a screen of the device and upon determining that the at least one type of context corresponds to the prioritized type of context, the media content item together with a reply element], ¶¶ 81-82 and ¶ 117. The relationship [context] between sender and recipient of the received message influences priority and format of a reply [in a first format], Abstract and ¶¶ 14, 36 and 114, e.g., and the priority may determine a level of, how low or high the priority is, for the relationships [type of context], ¶ 88)
the reply element being user-selectable to generate a reply message with respect to the media content item; (user can select alternative answers to generate the reply, ¶¶ 81-82 and ¶ 117)
and displaying, on the screen and upon determining that the at least one type of context corresponds to the non-prioritized type of context, the media content item together with the reply element in a second format (a reply for the content in the message is developed by presenting the content of the message, e.g., in a questionnaire format with editable and non-editable areas or fields, including fields for inserting user answers or user selection of alternative answers [and displaying, on the screen and upon determining that the at least one type of context corresponds to the non-prioritized type of context, the media content item together with the reply element], ¶¶ 81-82 and ¶ 117. The relationship [context] between sender and recipient of the received message influences priority and format of a reply [in a second format], Abstract and ¶¶ 14, 36 and 114, e.g., and the priority may determine a level of, how low or high the priority is, for the relationships, ¶ 88)
[…].
Snider does not appear to expressly teach, but Wagner teaches:
the prioritized type of context and the non-prioritized type of context having been specified by an administrator; (icons associated with one or more application(s), can be positioned on an employee’s interface “prioritized” based on ranking, ¶ 7, e.g., ranking based on relevance, Wagner claim 14, which can be set by an administrator, e.g., based on employee’s role/department and associated application(s), see Table 1 under ¶ 31).
that the second format is one “which is larger and in a different position than the first format” (wherein the icons are adjusted in terms of size and position based on the ranking, ¶ 42 and fig. 5A)
wherein the reply element is smaller and positioned in the first format to prioritize interaction with the media content item, when the media content item corresponds to the prioritized type of context, (wherein more relevant, prioritized, icons are larger in size and higher in position of the interface, than less relevant, non-prioritized, icons, ¶¶ 42 and 44 and figs. 5A and 5D. Note that “to prioritize interaction with the media content item” is in intended use format, as mentioned in the claim interpretation section above. )
wherein the reply element is larger and positioned in the second format to deprioritize interaction with the media content item, when the media content item corresponds to the non-prioritized type of context (wherein more relevant, prioritized, icons are larger in size and higher in position of the interface, than less relevant, non-prioritized, icons, ¶¶ 42 and 44 and figs. 5A and 5D. Note that “to deprioritize interaction with the media content item” is in intended use format, as mentioned in the claim interpretation section above.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Snider to include the prioritized type of context and the non-prioritized type of context having been specified by an administrator, and that the second format is one “which is larger and in a different position than the first format”, wherein the reply element is smaller and positioned in the first format to prioritize interaction with the media content item, when the media content item corresponds to the prioritized type of context, and wherein the reply element is larger and positioned in the second format to deprioritize interaction with the media content item, when the media content item corresponds to the non-prioritized type of context, as taught by Wagner.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to increase the usability of the method, e.g., by offering relevant display of items, and make it easier to interact stay on track with different tasks associated with the icons/elements Wagner Abstract and ¶¶ 1-2. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that in applying the concepts of Wagner prioritized icons to can be applicable to other prioritized user interface elements of Snider, including “wherein the reply element is smaller and positioned in the first format…, when the media content item corresponds to the prioritized type of context” and “wherein the reply element is larger and positioned in the second format…, when the media content item corresponds to the non-prioritized type of context” to achieve the same expected result of improved usability.
Snider does not appear to expressly teach, but Kobayashi teaches:
wherein the prioritized type of context corresponds to commerce, a non-sponsored attachment, a game, or a user profile referenced within the media content item, (a context of an application may include video game and music applications, ¶ 51 and fig. 5)
and wherein non-prioritized type of context corresponds to a group/event chat, an invitation to a private Story, music, an augmented reality content item, a venue, a sponsored attachment or a third-party application (a context of an application may include video game and music applications, ¶ 51 and fig. 5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Snider to include wherein the prioritized type of context corresponds to commerce, a non-sponsored attachment, a game, or a user profile referenced within the media content item, and wherein non-prioritized type of context corresponds to a group/event chat, an invitation to a private Story, music, an augmented reality content item, a venue, a sponsored attachment or a third-party application, as taught by Kobayashi.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the applicability of the method to apply to any known application context, including, e.g., game and music or any combination of multiple application types, Kobayashi ¶ 51.
Independent Claims 12 and 20:
Claim(s) 12 and 20 is/are directed to a device and computer-storage medium for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 1, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snider (US 20170359277 A1), in view of and Wagner (US 20150112752 A1), and Kobayashi (US 20210275919 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Karouhi et al. (hereinafter Karouhi – US 20150172144 A1).
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Snider-Wagner teaches adjusting display elements position and size based on contextual priority, as explained above for claim 1.
Snider-Wagner does not appear to expressly teach, but Karouhi teaches:
wherein the first format corresponds with displaying the reply element in a bottom corner of the screen, and wherein the second format corresponds with displaying the reply element in a bottom center of the screen. (The Quick Reply icon 450 appears on the bottom right in tool bar, but can be rendered in a different location on the screen 400, ¶ 29 and FIG. 4)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Snider to include wherein the first format corresponds with displaying the reply element in a bottom corner of the screen, and wherein the second format corresponds with displaying the reply element in a bottom center of the screen, as taught by Karouhi.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the flexibility and productivity of the method, e.g., by allowing for priority based positioning of elements in a number of positions, and allowing a seamless, productive creation step for reply messages, Karouhi, ¶¶ 19 and 29 and fig 4.
Claim 13:
The rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Claim(s) 13 is/are directed to a device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 2, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 9-11, 14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snider (US 20170359277 A1), in view of and Wagner (US 20150112752 A1), and Kobayashi (US 20210275919 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Takahashi; Kei (hereinafter Takahashi – US 20170228363 A1).
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Snider further teaches:
further comprising:
receiving user selection of the reply element; (user selects from alternative answers to generate the reply, ¶¶ 81-82 and ¶ 117).
Snider, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Takahashi teaches:
and in response to receiving the user selection, displaying, in a first preset area of the screen, a keyboard interface for user selection of message content to include in the reply message, and displaying, in a second preset area of the screen, a context information interface for presenting predefined contextual information which corresponds to the at least one type of context and which relates to the media content item (that after selecting a reply candidate, as shown in figs. 3-5, a keyboard board and text predictions [contextual information] are displayed, so that the user can modify the text of the reply candidate, ¶¶ 130 and 218-219 and figs. 7-9 and 13).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Snider to include and in response to receiving the user selection, displaying, in a first preset area of the screen, a keyboard interface for user selection of message content to include in the reply message, and displaying, in a second preset area of the screen, a context information interface for presenting predefined contextual information which corresponds to the at least one type of context and which relates to the media content item, as taught by Takahashi.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the efficiency of the method and allow for a user to complete a desirable reply with fewer operations, Takahashi ¶ 178
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Takahashi further teaches:
wherein the second preset area is positioned above the first preset area on the screen. (the row of suggested candidates 54 are displayed above the keyboard area 56, fig. 13)
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Takahashi further teaches:
further comprising:
determining that the at least one type of context corresponds to multiple types of context; (determine to provide the predictions for a current application [at least one type of context] currently being used, ¶ 12, based immediate content and history [multiple type of context], ¶ 10)
and displaying, in response to the determining, the context information interface as multiple context cards. (a prediction can be one or more auto-generated reply candidates, ¶ 62, and the one or more candidates are displayed as one or more [multiple] cards 46 or 54, e.g., see figs. 7 and 13 and ¶ 218. The predictions are for a single application [single type of context] currently being used, ¶ 120)
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Takahashi further teaches:
further comprising: determining that the at least one type of context is a single type of context to be represented by a single context card; (a prediction can be one or more auto-generated reply candidates, ¶ 62, and the one or more candidates are displayed as one [single] or more cards 46 or 54, e.g., see figs. 7 and 13 and ¶ 218. The predictions are for a single application [single type of context] currently being used, ¶ 120)
and displaying, in response to the determining, the context information interface as the single context card, (one candidate, ¶ 62, displayed as cards 46 or 54, e.g., see figs. 7 and 13 and ¶ 218)
which is user-selectable to present supplemental information associated with the single context card. (display is updated to different candidates to present other text portions based on prior candidate selections [present supplemental information associated with the single context card], ¶ 125-126)
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Takahashi further teaches:
further comprising:
determining that the at least one type of context is a single type of context to be represented by multiple context cards; (a prediction can be one or more auto-generated reply candidates, ¶ 62, and the one or more candidates are displayed as one or more [multiple] cards 46 or 54, e.g., see figs. 7 and 13 and ¶ 218. The predictions are for a single application [single type of context] currently being used, ¶ 120)
and displaying, in response to the determining, the context information interface as the multiple context cards. (candidates, ¶ 62, displayed as cards 46 or 54, e.g., see figs. 7 and 13 and ¶ 218)
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Takahashi further teaches:
wherein the multiple context cards are displayed as a row or column of cards, (the cards are displayed as a column, fig. 7, or as a row, fig. 13)
each card within the row or column being user-selectable to present supplemental information associated with the card. (display is updated to different candidates to present other text portions based on prior candidate selections [present supplemental information associated with the single context card], ¶ 125-126)
Claim 14:
The rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Claim(s) 14 is/are directed to a device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 3, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 16:
The rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Takahashi further teaches:
wherein the second preset area is positioned above the first preset area on the screen. (the row of suggested candidates 54 are displayed above the keyboard area 56, fig. 13)
Claim 17:
The rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Takahashi further teaches:
further comprising:
determining that the at least one type of context corresponds to multiple types of context; (determine to provide the predictions for a current application [at least one type of context] currently being used, ¶ 12, based immediate content and history [multiple type of context], ¶ 10)
and displaying, in response to the determining, the context information interface as multiple context cards. (a prediction can be one or more auto-generated reply candidates, ¶ 62, and the one or more candidates are displayed as one or more [multiple] cards 46 or 54, e.g., see figs. 7 and 13 and ¶ 218. The predictions are for a single application [single type of context] currently being used, ¶ 120)
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snider (US 20170359277 A1), in view of and Wagner (US 20150112752 A1), Kobayashi (US 20210275919 A1) and Takahashi (US 20170228363 A1), as applied to claims 3 and 14, and further in view of Mcgregor, Jr.; John Patrick et al. (hereinafter Mcgregor – US 20180083901 A1).
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Snider, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Mcgregor teaches:
wherein the keyboard interface and the context information interface are displayed as overlays with respect to the media content item (keyboard and suggested responses are displayed as overlays with respect to image 708, ¶¶ 144 and 146 and figs. 7 and 8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Snider to include wherein the keyboard interface and the context information interface are displayed as overlays with respect to the media content item, as taught by Mcgregor.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability and effectiveness of the method by making it easier and faster for the user to complete activities, e.g., without having to learn a complex user interface, Mcgregor ¶¶ 153-154.
Claim 15:
The rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Snider, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Mcgregor teaches:
wherein the keyboard interface and the context information interface are displayed as overlays with respect to the media content item (keyboard and suggested responses are displayed as overlays with respect to image 708, ¶¶ 144 and 146 and figs. 7 and 8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Snider to include wherein the keyboard interface and the context information interface are displayed as overlays with respect to the media content item, as taught by Mcgregor.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability and effectiveness of the device by making it easier and faster for the user to complete activities, e.g., without having to learn a complex user interface, Mcgregor ¶¶ 153-154.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snider (US 20170359277 A1), in view of and Wagner (US 20150112752 A1), Kobayashi (US 20210275919 A1), Takahashi (US 20170228363 A1), as applied to claims 6 and 17 above, and further in view of Krishnaraj; Venkat et- al. (hereinafter Krishnaraj – US 20110126156 A1).
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Snider, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Krishnaraj teaches:
wherein the multiple context cards are displayed as a stack of cards. (a number of selectable objects [selection candidates/options], ¶ 116, are displayed as a stack of objects [a stack of cards], ¶ 108 and figs. 5 and 7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Snider to include wherein the multiple context cards are displayed as a stack of cards, as taught by Krishnaraj.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the versatility and efficiency of the method by a way to interact with multiple items, in a format that allows people to quickly scan and easily identify multiple items by clusters, Krishnaraj ¶¶ 5 and 99.
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Snider, as modified, further teaches:
receiving user input corresponding to selection of the stack of cards; (Krishnaraj teaches that with a tap, the stack transition to grid mode, ¶ 108 and figs. 5 and 7).
and changing, in response to receiving the user input, display of the multiple context cards from the stack of cards to a row or column of cards ((Krishnaraj teaches that with a tap, the stack transition to grid mode, ¶ 108 and figs. 5 and 7)
each card within the row or column being user-selectable to present supplemental information associated with the card (Takahashi teaches that the display is updated to different candidates to present other text portions based on prior candidate selections [each card… being user-selectable to present supplemental information associated with the card], ¶ 125-126 and figs. 7 and fig. 13 [items are within the row or column]).
Claim 18:
The rejection of claim 17 is incorporated. Snider, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Krishnaraj teaches:
wherein the multiple context cards are displayed as a stack of cards. (a number of selectable objects [selection candidates/options], ¶ 116, are displayed as a stack of objects [a stack of cards], ¶ 108 and figs. 5 and 7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Snider to include wherein the multiple context cards are displayed as a stack of cards, as taught by Krishnaraj.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the versatility and efficiency of the device by a way to interact with multiple items, in a format that allows people to quickly scan and easily identify multiple items by clusters, Krishnaraj ¶¶ 5 and 99.
Claim 19:
The rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Snider, as modified, further teaches:
further comprising:
receiving user input corresponding to selection of the stack of cards; (Krishnaraj teaches that with a tap, the stack transition to grid mode, ¶ 108 and figs. 5 and 7)
and changing, in response to receiving the user input, display of the multiple context cards from the stack of cards to a row or column of cards, ((Krishnaraj teaches that with a tap, the stack transition to grid mode, ¶ 108 and figs. 5 and 7)
each card within the row or column being user-selectable to present supplemental information associated with the card. (Takahashi teaches that the display is updated to different candidates to present other text portions based on prior candidate selections [each card… being user-selectable to present supplemental information associated with the card], ¶ 125-126 and figs. 7 and fig. 13 [items are within the row or column])
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Double Patenting:
The amendment of claims overcome the statutory double patenting rejection.
The addition of “determining whether” versus simply “determining that”, and the addition that the media content item “corresponds to the prioritized type of context” both slightly, but obviously broaden the scope of the subject matter in the patented claim(s). These distinctions are obvious over the applied art(s) in the 103 rejection section above. However, obvious type double patenting rejection are obviated due to filing of the terminal disclaimer filed on 11/14/2025.
103:
First, concerning claim 1, the applicant alleges that Snider does not disclose the newly added limitations. Remarks Page 12.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
The applicant beyond mentioning some of the teachings of Snider, see Remarks Pages 11-12, the applicant does not provide specific reasoning concerning why Snider doesn’t teach the limitation(s).
Snider teaches some of the newly added limitation(s), as mapped in the above 103 rejection section.
In cases Snider is being attacked for not teaching all of the limitations, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, that applicant relies on the above argument to allege patentability of the remaining claims.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons provided above and/or in the 103 rejection section above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Bentley, Keith A. et al. (US 20050151755 A1), is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing that an administrator can assign display priorities for display elements, Abstract and ¶ 41.
Baek; Hyun Jung (US 20100248757 A1) is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing some of the limitations of the claims, as explained in Non-Final dated 05/04/2023 for parent application 16946136.
Marsh; Christopher (US 20070033531 A1) is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing that content may have one or more contexts, including music-related, business, gaming, etc., ¶ 66.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171