DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This is responsive to the amendment filed 2/6/2026.
No claims have been amended and response to remarks has been addressed below in the argument section.
Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 1, 10, and 19 as independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/7/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the first office action (Non-Final) on 11/6/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldred et al. (US 2024/0249068, filed 6/24/2021, hereinafter as Aldred) and further in view of Bastide et al. (US 2017/0364588, hereinafter as Bastide).
Claim 1. An apparatus for enabling automated configuration of abstractive context summaries for transmission to one or more integrated collaboration applications, the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including program code, the at least one memory and the program code configured to, with the at least one processor, (Aldred discloses in [0060] “It will be noted that the above discussion has described a variety of different systems, components and/or logic. It will be appreciated that such systems, components and/or logic can be comprised of hardware items (such as processors and associated memory, or other processing components, some of which are described below) that perform the functions associated with those systems, components and/or logic.” (emphasis added)) cause the apparatus to at least:
receive a summary event indication associated with an abstractive context summary of a multi-party communication channel associated with an incident identifier; Aldred discloses in [0022] “user interface trigger detector 121 can generate a user interface actuator on a user interface display 114 that can be actuated by user 116. Actuation of the user interface actuator can be detected by trigger detector 121 as an indication that user 116 wishes a document or other source content to be summarized. Source text identification and extraction system 122 then identifies the source content or source document to be summarized and extracts text from the source document for summarization.” And in [0023] “If the content to be summarized includes multiple documents, such as documents listed on a list of documents, then multiple document processor 138 detects that.” And in [0024] “When the source content to be summarized is a single source document, this may be detected by text extractor 140 which simply extracts the text from the source document to be summarized.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the summary event indication may be the action of a user wish to a summary to be generated. The incident identifier may be the identifying to whether the summary to be generated for a single document or multiple documents,
Aldred does not explicitly disclose
receive a destination identifier associated with a destination collaboration application of the one or more integrated collaboration applications; however, Bastide, in an analogous art, discloses in [0040-0043] “user 101 may be presented with various objects that result in collaborative activity, such as a community, a file, a virtual business card of another user 101, a folder, a wiki page, a web page, an activity stream, an e-mail application, an instant messenger, a chat session, a forum, etc. In one embodiment, collaboration mechanism 110 detects user 101 requesting to select an artifact by detecting user 101 selecting the displayed artifact via a mouse click… “Selecting an artifact,” as used herein, also includes selecting to view a summary of the artifact. For example, user 101 may select to view a listing of communities in the user's social network, such as by selecting to view the user's community spaces.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the destination ID may be the selection of the user to an application to view the generated summary. For example, the user may desire to view the summary via chat app, email app, social network app, etc.
modify the abstractive context summary of the multi-party communication channel based on a destination parameter set associated with the destination identifier to generate a destination configured abstractive context summary associated with the incident identifier; transmit the destination-configured abstractive context summary to the destination collaboration application. Further, Bastide discloses in [0013] “The collaboration mechanism then analyzes the determined collaboration activities for each artifact in the list of related artifacts to form a collaboration summary for each artifact, where a “collaboration summary,” as used herein, refers to a summary of the collaboration activities for the artifact in question. A collaboration summary for each artifact in the list of related artifacts is then presented to the user. In this manner, by presenting to the user a collaboration summary for each artifact (e.g., community, file, virtual business card, folder, wiki page, web page, activity stream, e-mail application, instant messenger, chat session, forum) related to an artifact requested by the user to be selected (e.g., user selected a community), the user is more likely to engage in collaborative activities with other artifacts since they are related to the artifact selected by the user.” And in [0043] “collaboration mechanism 110 analyzes communication system 100 for collaboration activities related to the selected artifact to determine a list of related artifacts. “Collaboration activities” or “collaborative activities,” as used herein, refer to user actions that occur when using artifacts. For instance, examples of collaboration activities include comments (e.g., comment posted on an activity stream), likes (e.g., selecting like button), dislikes (e.g., selecting dislike button), postings, sharings (e.g., sharing a file with other members in the same department) and resharings (e.g., reposting a tweet).” (emphasis added) examiner note: the abstractive summary may be formed (modified) for each artifact (application such as to be presented in chat app). Here, the destination parameter may be the structure or layout of each artifact (application). The user is more likely to engage in collaborative activities with other artifacts since they are related to the artifact selected by the user. The engagement may be actions such as providing a comment, sharing, resharing, etc.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Aldred with the teaching of Bastide because “by presenting to the user a collaboration summary for each artifact (e.g., community, file, virtual business card, folder, wiki page, web page, activity stream, e-mail application, instant messenger, chat session, forum) related to an artifact requested by the user to be selected (e.g., user selected a community), the user is more likely to engage in collaborative activities with other artifacts since they are related to the artifact selected by the user. As a result, the user's experience in utilizing collaborative artifacts is enhanced whereby the user is now participating in activities with other users that the user may not have previously participated.” Bastide [0013].
Claims 2, and 20. The rejection of the apparatus of claim 1 is incorporated, Aldred does not explicitly disclose wherein the abstractive context summary is associated with a first data structure and the destination collaboration application is associated with a second data structure that is different from the first data structure. However, Bastide discloses in [0037] “these collaboration applications present list views of artifacts (e.g., file, wiki, blog, community, social networking application) that are used in collaboration efforts among users. These list views typically include a summary with only a minimal amount of details, such as the last activity of the artifact. For example, the summary may include the details of a last update being made to the user's activity stream. However, such minimal details may not cause the user to engage in utilizing the collaborative artifact or other related collaborative artifacts. Unfortunately, there is not currently a means for improving the engagement of the user in collaboration activities, such as engaging in collaboration activities of various related collaborative artifacts.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the user may select to view collaborative summary conducted in collaborative application to be viewed in a second user selected application.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Aldred with the teaching of Bastide because “by presenting to the user a collaboration summary for each artifact (e.g., community, file, virtual business card, folder, wiki page, web page, activity stream, e-mail application, instant messenger, chat session, forum) related to an artifact requested by the user to be selected (e.g., user selected a community), the user is more likely to engage in collaborative activities with other artifacts since they are related to the artifact selected by the user. As a result, the user's experience in utilizing collaborative artifacts is enhanced whereby the user is now participating in activities with other users that the user may not have previously participated.” Bastide [0013].
Claims 3 and 12. The rejection of the apparatus of claim 2 is incorporated, Aldred does not explicitly disclose wherein the destination parameter set defines the second data structure associated with the destination collaboration application, and the destination-configured abstractive context summary is generated to have a data structure that corresponds to the second data structure associated with the destination collaboration application. However, Bastide discloses in [0037] “these collaboration applications present list views of artifacts (e.g., file, wiki, blog, community, social networking application) that are used in collaboration efforts among users. These list views typically include a summary with only a minimal amount of details, such as the last activity of the artifact. For example, the summary may include the details of a last update being made to the user's activity stream. However, such minimal details may not cause the user to engage in utilizing the collaborative artifact or other related collaborative artifacts. Unfortunately, there is not currently a means for improving the engagement of the user in collaboration activities, such as engaging in collaboration activities of various related collaborative artifacts.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the user may select to view collaborative summary conducted in collaborative application to be viewed in a second user selected application. Blog application structure may be different from social network application structure.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Aldred with the teaching of Bastide because “by presenting to the user a collaboration summary for each artifact (e.g., community, file, virtual business card, folder, wiki page, web page, activity stream, e-mail application, instant messenger, chat session, forum) related to an artifact requested by the user to be selected (e.g., user selected a community), the user is more likely to engage in collaborative activities with other artifacts since they are related to the artifact selected by the user. As a result, the user's experience in utilizing collaborative artifacts is enhanced whereby the user is now participating in activities with other users that the user may not have previously participated.” Bastide [0013].
Claims 4 and 13. The rejection of the apparatus of claim 1 is incorporated, Aldred does not explicitly disclose wherein transmitting the destination-configured abstractive context summary comprises transmitting the destination-configured abstractive context summary to a destination summary database associated with the destination collaboration application. However, Bastide discloses in [0037] “these collaboration applications present list views of artifacts (e.g., file, wiki, blog, community, social networking application) that are used in collaboration efforts among users. These list views typically include a summary with only a minimal amount of details, such as the last activity of the artifact. For example, the summary may include the details of a last update being made to the user's activity stream. However, such minimal details may not cause the user to engage in utilizing the collaborative artifact or other related collaborative artifacts. Unfortunately, there is not currently a means for improving the engagement of the user in collaboration activities, such as engaging in collaboration activities of various related collaborative artifacts.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the user may select to view collaborative summary conducted in collaborative application to be viewed in a second user selected application. Blog application structure may be different from social network application structure.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Aldred with the teaching of Bastide because “by presenting to the user a collaboration summary for each artifact (e.g., community, file, virtual business card, folder, wiki page, web page, activity stream, e-mail application, instant messenger, chat session, forum) related to an artifact requested by the user to be selected (e.g., user selected a community), the user is more likely to engage in collaborative activities with other artifacts since they are related to the artifact selected by the user. As a result, the user's experience in utilizing collaborative artifacts is enhanced whereby the user is now participating in activities with other users that the user may not have previously participated.” Bastide [0013].
Claims 5 and 14. The rejection of the apparatus of claim 1 is incorporated, Aldred does not explicitly disclose wherein transmitting the destination-configured abstractive context summary comprises transmitting the destination-configured abstractive context summary to a workspace associated with the destination collaboration application. However, Bastide discloses in [0037] “these collaboration applications present list views of artifacts (e.g., file, wiki, blog, community, social networking application) that are used in collaboration efforts among users. These list views typically include a summary with only a minimal amount of details, such as the last activity of the artifact. For example, the summary may include the details of a last update being made to the user's activity stream. However, such minimal details may not cause the user to engage in utilizing the collaborative artifact or other related collaborative artifacts. Unfortunately, there is not currently a means for improving the engagement of the user in collaboration activities, such as engaging in collaboration activities of various related collaborative artifacts.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the user may select to view collaborative summary conducted in collaborative application to be viewed in a second user selected application. Blog application structure may be different from social network application structure.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Aldred with the teaching of Bastide because “by presenting to the user a collaboration summary for each artifact (e.g., community, file, virtual business card, folder, wiki page, web page, activity stream, e-mail application, instant messenger, chat session, forum) related to an artifact requested by the user to be selected (e.g., user selected a community), the user is more likely to engage in collaborative activities with other artifacts since they are related to the artifact selected by the user. As a result, the user's experience in utilizing collaborative artifacts is enhanced whereby the user is now participating in activities with other users that the user may not have previously participated.” Bastide [0013].
Claims 6 and 15. The rejection of the apparatus of claim 1 is incorporated, Aldred does not explicitly disclose wherein transmitting the destination-configured abstractive context summary comprises ingesting the destination-configured abstractive context summary into a post-incident report template associated with the destination collaboration application for rendering a post-incident report for the incident identifier on a display of a client computing device. However, Bastide discloses in [0037] “these collaboration applications present list views of artifacts (e.g., file, wiki, blog, community, social networking application) that are used in collaboration efforts among users. These list views typically include a summary with only a minimal amount of details, such as the last activity of the artifact. For example, the summary may include the details of a last update being made to the user's activity stream. However, such minimal details may not cause the user to engage in utilizing the collaborative artifact or other related collaborative artifacts. Unfortunately, there is not currently a means for improving the engagement of the user in collaboration activities, such as engaging in collaboration activities of various related collaborative artifacts.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the user may select to view collaborative summary conducted in collaborative application to be viewed in a second user selected application. Blog application structure may be different from social network application structure.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Aldred with the teaching of Bastide because “by presenting to the user a collaboration summary for each artifact (e.g., community, file, virtual business card, folder, wiki page, web page, activity stream, e-mail application, instant messenger, chat session, forum) related to an artifact requested by the user to be selected (e.g., user selected a community), the user is more likely to engage in collaborative activities with other artifacts since they are related to the artifact selected by the user. As a result, the user's experience in utilizing collaborative artifacts is enhanced whereby the user is now participating in activities with other users that the user may not have previously participated.” Bastide [0013].
Claims 7 and 16. The rejection of the apparatus of claim 1 is incorporated, Aldred does not explicitly disclose wherein transmitting the destination-configured abstractive context summary comprises ingesting the destination-configured abstractive context summary into an alert notification template associated with the destination collaboration application for rendering an alert notification for the incident identifier on a display of a client computing device. However, Bastide discloses in [0017] “Computing devices 101 may be configured to send and receive text-based messages in real-time during an instant messaging session. Any user of computing devices 101 may be the creator or initiator of an instant message (message in instant messaging) and any user of computing devices 101 may be a recipient of an instant message. Furthermore, any user of computing devices 101 may be able to create, receive and send e-mails. Additionally, any user of computing devices 101 may be able to send and receive text messages, such as Short Message Services (SMS) messages.” And in [0037] “these collaboration applications present list views of artifacts (e.g., file, wiki, blog, community, social networking application) that are used in collaboration efforts among users. These list views typically include a summary with only a minimal amount of details, such as the last activity of the artifact. For example, the summary may include the details of a last update being made to the user's activity stream. However, such minimal details may not cause the user to engage in utilizing the collaborative artifact or other related collaborative artifacts. Unfortunately, there is not currently a means for improving the engagement of the user in collaboration activities, such as engaging in collaboration activities of various related collaborative artifacts.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the user may select to view collaborative summary conducted in collaborative application to be viewed in a second user selected application if the user selected his destination application to be an instant message application, then the user may view an alert notification as an instant message notification.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Aldred with the teaching of Bastide because “by presenting to the user a collaboration summary for each artifact (e.g., community, file, virtual business card, folder, wiki page, web page, activity stream, e-mail application, instant messenger, chat session, forum) related to an artifact requested by the user to be selected (e.g., user selected a community), the user is more likely to engage in collaborative activities with other artifacts since they are related to the artifact selected by the user. As a result, the user's experience in utilizing collaborative artifacts is enhanced whereby the user is now participating in activities with other users that the user may not have previously participated.” Bastide [0013].
Claims 8 and 17. The rejection of the apparatus of claim 1 is incorporated, Aldred does not explicitly disclose wherein transmitting the destination-configured abstractive context summary comprises ingesting the destination-configured abstractive context summary into an incident timeline template associated with the destination collaboration application for rendering an incident timeline associated with the incident identifier on a display of a client computing device. However, Bastide discloses in [0017] “Computing devices 101 may be configured to send and receive text-based messages in real-time during an instant messaging session. Any user of computing devices 101 may be the creator or initiator of an instant message (message in instant messaging) and any user of computing devices 101 may be a recipient of an instant message. Furthermore, any user of computing devices 101 may be able to create, receive and send e-mails. Additionally, any user of computing devices 101 may be able to send and receive text messages, such as Short Message Services (SMS) messages.” And in [0037] “these collaboration applications present list views of artifacts (e.g., file, wiki, blog, community, social networking application) that are used in collaboration efforts among users. These list views typically include a summary with only a minimal amount of details, such as the last activity of the artifact. For example, the summary may include the details of a last update being made to the user's activity stream. However, such minimal details may not cause the user to engage in utilizing the collaborative artifact or other related collaborative artifacts. Unfortunately, there is not currently a means for improving the engagement of the user in collaboration activities, such as engaging in collaboration activities of various related collaborative artifacts.” (emphasis added) examiner note: the user may select to view collaborative summary conducted in collaborative application to be viewed in a second user selected application if the user selected his destination application to be an instant message application, then the user may view an alert notification as an instant message notification. Email application and instant messaging application may present summaries of messages in a thread as indicated by Aldred in [0017] to be presented in a timeline in an email destination application as taught by Bastide.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Aldred with the teaching of Bastide because “by presenting to the user a collaboration summary for each artifact (e.g., community, file, virtual business card, folder, wiki page, web page, activity stream, e-mail application, instant messenger, chat session, forum) related to an artifact requested by the user to be selected (e.g., user selected a community), the user is more likely to engage in collaborative activities with other artifacts since they are related to the artifact selected by the user. As a result, the user's experience in utilizing collaborative artifacts is enhanced whereby the user is now participating in activities with other users that the user may not have previously participated.” Bastide [0013].
Claims 9 and 18. The rejection of the apparatus of claim 1 is incorporated, Aldred does not explicitly disclose wherein the destination collaboration application comprises an incident management application configured to provide one or more incident management services. However, Bastide discloses in [0043] “collaboration mechanism 110 analyzes communication system 100 for collaboration activities related to the selected artifact to determine a list of related artifacts. “Collaboration activities” or “collaborative activities,” as used herein, refer to user actions that occur when using artifacts. For instance, examples of collaboration activities include comments (e.g., comment posted on an activity stream), likes (e.g., selecting like button), dislikes (e.g., selecting dislike button), postings, sharings (e.g., sharing a file with other members in the same department) and resharings (e.g., reposting a tweet).” (emphasis added) examiner note: the incident management services may be providing comments, sharing, resharing, selecting “likes” or “dislikes” buttons.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Aldred with the teaching of Bastide because “by presenting to the user a collaboration summary for each artifact (e.g., community, file, virtual business card, folder, wiki page, web page, activity stream, e-mail application, instant messenger, chat session, forum) related to an artifact requested by the user to be selected (e.g., user selected a community), the user is more likely to engage in collaborative activities with other artifacts since they are related to the artifact selected by the user. As a result, the user's experience in utilizing collaborative artifacts is enhanced whereby the user is now participating in activities with other users that the user may not have previously participated.” Bastide [0013].
Claim 10. The claim is directed towards a computer-implemented method for implementing the steps of the apparatus of claim 1, therefore, is similarly rejected as claim 1.
Claim 19. The claim is directed towards at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for implementing the apparatus steps of claim 1, therefore is similarly rejected as claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Applicant argues “Aldred does not disclose, teach, or suggest "receive a summary event indication associated with an abstractive context summary of a multi-party communication channel associated with an incident identifier," as recited in the independent claims in some form. The Office Action concedes that Aldred does not disclose "modify the abstractive context summary of the multi-party communication channel based on a destination parameter set associated with the destination identifier to generate a destination configured abstractive context summary associated with the incident identifier," but alleges that Bastide does.”
Response: Aldred teaches in [0022] “User interface trigger detector 121 detects a user input from user 116 or another trigger indicating that a source document is to be summarized… user interface trigger detector 121 can generate a user interface actuator on a user interface display 114 that can be actuated by user 116.”
Examiner note: detecting user input to trigger document summarization may be interpreted as “receive a summary event indication” to summarize content of a document or a multi-party communication channel.
Aldred also teaches in [0022] “it may be that user 116 is viewing a mailbox on user interfaces 114 where the user actuates the summarization actuator. In that case, email thread processor 136 parses the email thread to identify the content of the email messages and use text extractor 140 to extract the text from the message. Email thread processor 136 can also obtain the sender and recipients of that content. The separate items of content can be identified and metadata identifying their sender and recipients can be identified along with other metadata, such as the date and time when the message was sent, among other things. Text output generator 142 provides this text and metadata to text dividing system 124.” (emphasis added).
Examiner note: metadata such as sender, receiver, date, and time may be parameters interpreted as incident identifier associated with the content to be summarized.
Bastide teaches in [0013] “The collaboration mechanism then analyzes the determined collaboration activities for each artifact in the list of related artifacts to form a collaboration summary for each artifact, where a “collaboration summary,” as used herein, refers to a summary of the collaboration activities for the artifact in question. A collaboration summary for each artifact in the list of related artifacts is then presented to the user. In this manner, by presenting to the user a collaboration summary for each artifact (e.g., community, file, virtual business card, folder, wiki page, web page, activity stream, e-mail application, instant messenger, chat session, forum) related to an artifact requested by the user to be selected (e.g., user selected a community), the user is more likely to engage in collaborative activities with other artifacts since they are related to the artifact selected by the user. As a result, the user's experience in utilizing collaborative artifacts is enhanced whereby the user is now participating in activities with other users that the user may not have previously participated.” (emphasis added).
Examiner note: the collaboration summary may be modified (tailored) based on selected artifact (application) being utilized by the user requesting the collaboration summary. For example, if the user utilizing community application, the collaboration summary may be formed (tailored) accordingly to be presented in the community application format.
The reason to combine the teaching of Aldred and the teaching of Bastide is that Aldred teaches in [0017] “it is not uncommon for users of email systems to engage in rather lengthy exchanges thus creating a long email thread. When a new user wishes to join the email discussion, it is difficult to summarize all of the messages in the email thread for the new user.” (emphasis added), whereas Bastide teaches in [0013] “the user is more likely to engage in collaborative activities with other artifacts since they are related to the artifact selected by the user. As a result, the user's experience in utilizing collaborative artifacts is enhanced whereby the user is now participating in activities with other users that the user may not have previously participated.” (emphasis added). It can be seen that both references at least teach a user may wish to have a summary of what is being discussed in a collaborative application so that the user can catchup or gain knowledge about what was being discussed in order to engage with users in the collaborative application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AHAMED I NAZAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3174. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am to 7 pm Mon-Fri.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at 571-272-4124. 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.
/AHAMED I NAZAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2178 3/3/2026
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178