DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This final office action is in response to the amendment filed 2 March 2026.
Claims 22-41 are pending. Claims 22 and 34 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 22-29, 32-34, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McInerny (US 10296558, patented 21 May 2019) and further in view of Hogg et al. (US 2013/0226736, published 29 August 2013, hereafter Hogg) and further in view of Phillips et al. (US 2023/0010938, filed 6 July 2021, hereafter Philips) and further in view of Reigen et al. (US 2017/0193117, published 6 July 2017, hereafter Reigen).
With respect to independent claim 22, McInerny discloses a non-transitory, processor-readable medium storing code, the code comprising instructions to cause a processor to:
load a webpage at a user device (column 35, lines 20-36: Here, a user loads a webpage and the URL is identified)
make, to a data store, an application programming interface (API) call that includes a request for a media asset (column 35, line 45- column 36, line 21: Here, it is determined if the content item is contained within a cache. If it is within the cache, it is provided. If not, it is requested from the source)
embed the media asset in the webpage (column 38, lines 39-47: Here, the composite webpage is provided to the client)
McInerny fails to specifically disclose:
in response to loading the webpage at the user device, receiving, at the user device and from a server, implementation instructions for a widget
render, at the user device and in response to receiving the implementation instructions at the widget such that the widget is embedded in the webpage
execute, at the user device and not the server, the widget
a database
execute, at the user device, the widget implementation instructions to cause the widget to be embedded within the webpage and to cause the widget to inspect a structure and/or content of the webpage to define a fingerprint of the webpage based on a matching strategy that is predefined in the widget
However, Hogg, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward locally executed widgets, discloses:
in response to loading the webpage at the user device, receiving, at the user device and from a server, implementation instructions for a widget (Figure 3; paragraph 0065: Here, a widget embedding link identifies a resource of the website hosted by the host server system that embeds the widget into the webpage)
render, at the user device and in response to receiving the implementation instructions at the widget such that the widget is embedded in the webpage (Figure 3; paragraph 0065: Here, a widget embedding link identifies a resource of the website hosted by the host server system that embeds the widget into the webpage)
execute, at the user device and not the server, the widget (Figure 7; paragraph 0084: Here, the embedded storefront widget is executed within the webpage at the client and receives information from a user at the client device. The widget sends the user identification credentials to the transaction server)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Hogg with McInerny, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for receiving user data at a client and then transmitting the data package from the widget to the server (Hogg: paragraph 0084). This would have reduced network traffic as a single set of user data would be submitted from the client to the server instead of sending each piece individually.
Additionally, Phillips, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward multi-modal content creating and association, discloses:
a database (Figure 1; paragraph 0033)
identifying a keyword associated identifying a keyword associated with a textual content in response to a user loading a webpage (paragraphs 0040 and 0048: Here, an element parser automatically identifies element metadata for different elements within a page. This includes identifying metadata (keywords) associated with audio elements, video elements, and textual elements of a page)
defining a fingerprint associated with the keyword, the fingerprint including information representative of a matching strategy to match the job posting to video content (paragraphs 0040 and 0048: Here, the identities of each of the different audio, video, textual elements are determined and the associated metadata for each element. Elements determined to be relevant, based upon the associated metadata, are grouped into content genomes based upon these classified features (Figure 4; paragraph 0074-0075))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Phillips with McInerny-Hogg, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have enabled a user to leverage machine learning techniques to group related contents. This would have allowed a user to receive a more robust set of data all having common contents, thereby allowing the user to receive multi-modal display of related contents.
Finally, Reigen, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward embedding client-side widgets, discloses execute, at the user device, the widget implementation instructions to cause the widget to be embedded within the webpage (paragraphs 0031-0032: Here, a widget is embedded withing a client webpage at the client side, so that the code is run on the client device instead of at the server-side). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Reigen with McInerny-Hogg-Phillips, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for executing widget instructions at the client-side, thereby offloading processing from the server (Reigen: paragraphs 0031-0032).
As per dependent claim 23, McInerny, Hogg, Phillips, and Reigen disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 22, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Phillips discloses wherein the instructions to cause the processor to execute the widget further includes instructions to cause the processor to identify a keyword associated with the webpage, the fingerprint including the keyword (paragraphs 0040 and 0048: Here, an element parser automatically identifies element metadata for different elements within a page. This includes identifying metadata (keywords) associated with audio elements, video elements, and textual elements of a page).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Phillips with McInerny, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have enabled a user to leverage machine learning techniques to group related contents. This would have allowed a user to receive a more robust set of data all having common contents, thereby allowing the user to receive multi-modal display of related contents.
As per dependent claim 24, McInerny, Hogg, Phillips, and Reigen disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 22, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Phillips discloses wherein the fingerprint includes a plurality of keywords (paragraphs 0040 and 0048: Here, an element parser automatically identifies element metadata for different elements within a page. This includes identifying metadata (keywords) associated with audio elements, video elements, and textual elements of a page).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Phillips with McInerny, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have enabled a user to leverage machine learning techniques to group related contents. This would have allowed a user to receive a more robust set of data all having common contents, thereby allowing the user to receive multi-modal display of related contents.
As per dependent claim 25, McInerny, Hogg, Phillips, and Reigen disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 22, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Phillips discloses wherein the fingerprint includes a plurality of keywords (paragraphs 0040 and 0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Phillips with McInerny, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have enabled a user to leverage machine learning techniques to group related contents. This would have allowed a user to receive a more robust set of data all having common contents, thereby allowing the user to receive multi-modal display of related contents.
McInverny-Phillips fails to specifically disclose each keyword from the plurality of keywords has a priority level such that the media asset received in response to the API call is associated with the keyword from the plurality of keywords having a highest priority level for which a corresponding media asset exists in the database. However, the examiner takes official notice that assigning priority to parameters was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with McInerny, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for prioritizing contents. This would have allowed for greater control in selecting contents for a webpage.
As per dependent claim 26, McInerny, Hogg, Phillips, and Reigen disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 22, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. McInerny fails to specifically disclose wherein inspecting the structure and/or content of the webpage includes inspecting HTML associated with the webpage. However, the examiner takes official notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to inspect the structure and/or contents of the webpage includes inspecting the HTML associated with the webpage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with McInerny, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for easy identification of various blocks of content, such as image, video, and text, within the webpage.
As per dependent claim 27, McInerny, Hogg, Phillips, and Reigen disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 22, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. McInerny fails to specifically wherein inspecting the structure and/or content of the webpage includes inspecting a CSS associated with the webpage. However, the examiner takes official notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to inspect the structure and/or contents of the webpage includes inspecting a CSS associated with the webpage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with McInerny, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for easy identification of various blocks of content, such as image, video, and text, within the webpage.
As per dependent claim 28, McInerny, Hogg, Phillips, and Reigen disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 22, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. McInerny disclose wherein the media asset is a video (column 38, lines 39-47).
As per dependent claim 29, McInerny, Hogg, Phillips, and Reigen disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 22, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. McInerny discloses wherein the code further comprises instructions to cause the processor to identify a location for the media asset by inspecting the structure and/or content of the webpage, the media asset embedded in the location (column 35, line 45- column 36, line 21; column 38, lines 39-47).
As per dependent claim 32, McInerny, Hogg, Phillips, and Reigen disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 22, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. McInerny discloses wherein the matching strategy is agnostic to the structure and content of the webpage (column 3, lines 46-63).
As per dependent claim 33, McInerny, Hogg, Phillips, and Reigen disclose wherein the instructions to embed the media asset is configured to embed the media asset in the webpage in a manner that is agnostic to a format and a source of the media asset (column 3, lines 46-63).
With respect to claim 34, the applicant discloses the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 22. Claim 34 is similarly rejected.
As per dependent claim 39, McInerny, Hogg, and Phillips disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 34, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. McInerny discloses wherein the at least one server is configured to be communicatively coupled to a video content provider and the API is configured to retrieve the media asset from the video content provider in response to receiving the keyword (column 38, lines 39-47).
As per dependent claim 40, McInerny, Hogg, and Phillips disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 39, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. McInerny discloses wherein the media asset is an item of video content (column 38, lines 39-47).
Claims 30-31 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McInerny, Hogg, Phillips, and Reigen and further in view of Cramer et al. (US 869496, patented 8 April 2014, hereafter Cramer).
As per dependent claim 30, McInerny, Hogg, Phillips, and Reigen disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 22, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. McInerny fails to specifically disclose:
the fingerprint is a second fingerprint based on a second matching strategy and the API call is a second AIP call
the instructions to cause the processor to execute the widget further comprises instructions to cause the processor to define a first fingerprint of the webpage based on a first matching strategy, the code further comprising instructions to cause the processor to:
make, to the database, a first API call that includes the first fingerprint
receive, in response to the first API call, an indication of a lack of a match to a suitable media asset, the widget executed to define the second fingerprint based on receiving the indication of the lack of the match
However, Cramer, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward serving alternative video contents, discloses:
the fingerprint is a second fingerprint based on a second matching strategy and the API call is a second AIP call (column 1, line 65- column 2, line 2)
the instructions to cause the processor to execute the widget further comprises instructions to cause the processor to define a first fingerprint of the webpage based on a first matching strategy, the code further comprising instructions to cause the processor to:
make, to the database, a first API call that includes the first fingerprint (column 1, lines 31-42; column 1, line 65- column 2, line 14)
receive, in response to the first API call, an indication of a lack of a match to a suitable media asset, the widget executed to define the second fingerprint based on receiving the indication of the lack of the match (column 1, lines 31-42; column 1, line 65- column 2, line 14: Here, it is determined that a video is not available. Based upon metrics/parameters, a substitute video is identified and provided to the user)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Cramer with McInerny, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have enabled a user to receive video contents within the page. This would have enabled a user to receive a properly formatted page containing appropriate video content.
As per dependent claim 31, McInerny, Hogg, Phillips, and Cramer disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 30, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. McInerny fails to specifically disclose wherein the first fingerprint is assigned a first priority that is higher than a second priority assigned to the second fingerprint. However, the examiner takes official notice that assigning priority to parameters was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with McInerny, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for prioritizing contents. This would have allowed for greater control in selecting contents for a webpage.
With respect to claim 35, the applicant discloses the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 30. Claim 35 is similarly rejected.
Claims 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McInerny, Hogg, Phillips, and Reigen and further in view of Gupta et al. (US 2014/0358809, published 4 December 2014, hereafter Gupta).
As per dependent claim 36, McInerny, Hogg, Phillips, and Reigen disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 34, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. McInerny fails to specifically disclose wherein each webpage from the plurality of webpages is associated with a job posting.
However, Gupta, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward a job posting website, discloses wherein the webpage includes a job posting (paragraph 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Gupta with McInerny, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have enabled a user to request and view job posting websites. This would have allowed the user to access and apply to online job postings. This would have provided the advantage of allowing a user to apply for jobs remotely, instead of applying in person.
As per dependent claim 37, McInerny, Hogg, Phillips, and Reigen disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 34, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. McInerny fails to specifically disclose:
each webpage from the plurality of webpages is associated with a job posting
the widget is configured to identify a keyword associated with the job posting, the fingerprint including the keyword
However, Phillips, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward multi-modal content creating and association, discloses:
identifying a keyword associated identifying a keyword associated with a textual content in response to a user loading a webpage (paragraphs 0040 and 0048: Here, an element parser automatically identifies element metadata for different elements within a page. This includes identifying metadata (keywords) associated with audio elements, video elements, and textual elements of a page)
defining a fingerprint associated with the keyword, the fingerprint including information representative of a matching strategy to match the job posting to video content (paragraphs 0040 and 0048: Here, the identities of each of the different audio, video, textual elements are determined and the associated metadata for each element. Elements determined to be relevant, based upon the associated metadata, are grouped into content genomes based upon these classified features (Figure 4; paragraph 0074-0075))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Phillips with McInerny, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have enabled a user to leverage machine learning techniques to group related contents. This would have allowed a user to receive a more robust set of data all having common contents, thereby allowing the user to receive multi-modal display of related contents.
Additionally, Gupta, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward a job posting website, discloses wherein the webpage includes a job posting (paragraph 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Gupta with McInerny, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have enabled a user to request and view job posting websites. This would have allowed the user to access and apply to online job postings. This would have provided the advantage of allowing a user to apply for jobs remotely, instead of applying in person.
As per dependent claim 38, McInerny, Hogg, Phillips, and Reigen discloses the limitations similar to those in claim 34, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. McInerny fails to specifically disclose wherein:
each webpage from the plurality of webpages is associated with a job posting
the widget is configured to identifying a keyword associated with the job posting by identifying a text string in block associated with a predefined HTML and/or CSS element, the fingerprint including the keyword.
However, Phillips, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward multi-modal content creating and association, discloses:
identifying a keyword associated identifying a keyword associated with a textual content in response to a user loading a webpage (paragraphs 0040 and 0048: Here, an element parser automatically identifies element metadata for different elements within a page. This includes identifying metadata (keywords) associated with audio elements, video elements, and textual elements of a page)
defining a fingerprint associated with the keyword, the fingerprint including information representative of a matching strategy to match the job posting to video content (paragraphs 0040 and 0048: Here, the identities of each of the different audio, video, textual elements are determined and the associated metadata for each element. Elements determined to be relevant, based upon the associated metadata, are grouped into content genomes based upon these classified features (Figure 4; paragraph 0074-0075))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Phillips with McInerny, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have enabled a user to leverage machine learning techniques to group related contents. This would have allowed a user to receive a more robust set of data all having common contents, thereby allowing the user to receive multi-modal display of related contents.
Additionally, Gupta, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward a job posting website, discloses wherein the webpage includes a job posting (paragraph 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Gupta with McInerny, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have enabled a user to request and view job posting websites. This would have allowed the user to access and apply to online job postings. This would have provided the advantage of allowing a user to apply for jobs remotely, instead of applying in person.
Additionally, the examiner takes official notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to inspect the structure and/or contents of the webpage includes inspecting the HTML associated with the webpage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with McInerny, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for easy identification of various blocks of content, such as image, video, and text, within the webpage.
Finally, the examiner takes official notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to inspect the structure and/or contents of the webpage includes inspecting a CSS associated with the webpage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with McInerny, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for easy identification of various blocks of content, such as image, video, and text, within the webpage.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McInerny, Hogg, Phillips, and Reigen and further in view of Cramer and further in view of Howley (US 2016/0328577, published 10 November 2016).
As per dependent claim 41, McInerny, Hogg, Phillips, and Reigen disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 34, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. McInerny discloses:
the API is a first API (column 38, lines 39-47)
the at least one server is configured to be communicatively coupled to a first media asset provider (column 38, lines 39-47)
McInverny fails to specifically disclose:
a second media asset provider
the at least one server is configured to query the first media asset provider via a second API based on receiving the keyword via the first API
the at least one server is configured to query the second media asset provider via a third API based on receiving the keyword via the first API and not receiving a relevant media asset in response to querying the first media asset provider
the first API configured to return the media asset to the user device in response to retrieving the media asset from the second media asset provider
However, Phillips, discloses:
the at least one server is configured to query the first media asset provider via an API based on receiving the keyword via the first API (paragraphs 0040 and 0048)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Phillips with McInerny, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have enabled a user to leverage machine learning techniques to group related contents. This would have allowed a user to receive a more robust set of data all having common contents, thereby allowing the user to receive multi-modal display of related contents.
Additionally, Cramer, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward serving alternative video contents, the at least one server is configured to query the second media asset provider via a third API based on receiving the keyword via the first API and not receiving a relevant media asset in response to querying the first media asset provider (column 1, line 65- column 2, line 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Cramer with McInerny, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have enabled a user to receive video contents within the page. This would have enabled a user to receive a properly formatted page containing appropriate video content.
Finally, Howley, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward remote data management, discloses a second media asset provider and the first API configured to return the media asset to the user device in response to retrieving the media asset from the second media asset provider (Figure 1B; paragraph 0015). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Howley with McInerny-Phillips-Cramer, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for serving contents using different APIs. This would have facilitated providing contents to a user from various different data sources in order to generate complex webpage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of McInerny, Hogg, Phillips, and Reigen.
The factual assertion set forth in the Office Action dated 3 November 2025 has not been traversed. According to MPEP 2144.03 (C) the official notice statement is taken to be admitted prior art because the appellant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rathod (US 2018/0246983): Discloses a client-side plugin module (paragraph 0448)
Davison et al. (US 9754245): Discloses embedding widgets for executing client side code and/or scripts (column 2, line 25- column 3, line 3)
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE R STORK whose telephone number is (571)272-4130. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 2pm; 4pm - 6pm.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571/272-2589. 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.
/KYLE R STORK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights