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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 3/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20-22 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Amendment, with respect to rejections under prior art have been fully considered and are moot upon a new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment, as outlined below.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Han et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0329607), referred to as Han herein [previously cited].
Levy et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2010/0268661), referred to as Levy herein [previously cited].
Sigiuara (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0328319), referred to as Sigiura herein [previously cited].
Li (US Patent Application Publication 2025/0036272), referred to as Li herein.
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Levy in further view of Li.
Regarding claim 1, Han discloses a method, performed by an electronic device, for displaying a personalized menu on a screen of a display, the method comprising (Han, Figs. 4 and 7 with ¶0107-¶0110, ¶0175, ¶0320 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory to display a personalized menu on a display):
obtaining an application use history of the electronic device; determining a plurality of first applications of the electronic device, based on the application use history of the electronic device, wherein each of the first applications of the plurality of first application has a
identifying a user group including a user of the electronic device, based on information about the plurality of first applications; performing an correlation analysis with respect to a plurality of applications including the plurality of first applications, based on an application use history of other electronic devices of the user group (Han, Fig. 14 with ¶0119-¶0120, ¶0227-¶0229 – a user group of users similar to the device user are identified, and usage patterns with respect to the objects selected by other users are used to inform the recommendation. Figs. 5 and 6 with ¶0159-¶0162 – personalized menu is displayed including the recommended objects. See also Fig. 9 with ¶0175-¶0179);
based on a result of the correlation analysis and the information about the plurality of first applications, determining a plurality of second applications to be recommended to the user of the electronic device; generating a personalized application menu including the plurality of first applications and the plurality of second applications,
However, Han as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Levy discloses recommending items to users that users are likely to act upon (Levy, Abstract) based on historical data (Levy, ¶0094-¶0095), including
wherein, in the personalized application menu, the plurality of first applications have a higher priority than the plurality of second applications (Levy, ¶0181-¶0187, ¶0509, ¶0532, ¶0550-¶0551 – items are sorted according to relevancy for recommendation, the top scoring items are included. The top scoring items will not have the same rank. ¶0048, ¶0159, ¶0283, ¶0297-¶0305 – a mixture of related items and promotions or items from a different category are chosen to be displayed. Promotions can be employed when recommendations based on similarity/likelihood do not exist).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the recommended items of Han to include applications with differing priorities based on the teachings of Levy. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable incorporation of promotional items or to fill out recommendations when there are insufficient top ranked recommendations (Levy, ¶0283).
However, Han as modified appears not to expressly disclose wherein each of the first applications of the plurality of first application has a use time greater than a threshold. However, in the same field of endeavor, Li discloses application recommendations (Li, Abstract with Fig. 2 and ¶0049, ¶0181), including
wherein each of the recommended first applications of the plurality of first application has a use time greater than a threshold (Li, Fig. 2 with ¶0050, ¶0052, ¶0089, ¶0091 – applications are recommended based on usage time exceeding a threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the recommended items of Han to include applications with usage time exceeding a threshold based on the teachings of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the effectiveness and accuracy of recommended items.
Regarding claim 2, Han as modified discloses the elements of claim 1. However, Han appears not to expressly disclose wherein the performing the correlation analysis with respect to the plurality of applications comprises: calculating correlation coefficients between the plurality of applications by using a correlation analysis algorithm; and based on the correlation coefficients, determining: correlation applications having a positive correlation with respect to the plurality of first applications, non-correlation applications having no correlation with respect to the plurality of first applications, and inverse-correlation applications having a negative correlation with respect to the plurality of first applications (Levy, ¶0440-¶0443 – calculated correlation coefficients used to inform recommendations. Positive and negative correlations identified. Fig. 1 with ¶0052, ¶0104, ¶0215, ¶0297-¶0305, ¶0576– non-correlation items identified and weighted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the correlation analysis of Han to include positive, negative and no correlation based on the teachings of Levy. The motivation for doing so would have been to The motivation for doing so would have been to more accurately recommend new items (Levy, ¶0159), and to leverage data regarding users that have opposite taste for information recommendations (Levy, ¶0439).
Regarding claim 3, Han as modified discloses the elements of claim 2 above, and further discloses wherein the determining the plurality of second applications comprises determining at least one of the correlation applications as the plurality of second applications (Han, Figs. 5, 6, 9, 11 with ¶0159-¶0162, ¶0175-¶0179, ¶0197 – personalized menu is displayed including the recommended object based on user group and application use history).
Regarding claim 4, Han as modified discloses the elements of claim 2 above, and further discloses wherein the determining the plurality of second applications comprises determining at least one of the non-correlation applications as the plurality of second applications (Levy, ¶0048, ¶0159, ¶0283, ¶0297-¶0305 – a mixture of related items and promotions or items from a different category are chosen to be displayed. Promotions can be employed when recommendations based on similarity/likelihood do not exist. ¶0219-¶0220, ¶0230-¶0240 – promotions can be forced into the list despite not being identified as not correlated for inclusion in the list).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the recommended items of Han to include non-correlation applications based on the teachings of Levy. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable incorporation of promotional items or to fill out recommendations when there are insufficient top ranked recommendations (Levy, ¶0283).
Regarding claim 5, Han as modified discloses the elements of claim 2 above, and further discloses wherein the determining the plurality of second applications comprises determining at least one of the inverse-correlation applications as the plurality of second applications (Levy, ¶0049, ¶0439 – using negative correlations for recommendations. For example, regarding the target item, using the negative preferences of a user with opposite taste).
Regarding claim 6, Han as modified discloses the elements of claim 2 above, and further discloses wherein the determining the plurality of second applications comprises: receiving, from the user of the electronic device, the user's input for requesting a recommendation of the plurality of second applications; and based on the user's input, determining the plurality of second applications as at least one application classified as one of the correlation applications, the non-correlation applications, and the inverse-correlation applications (Han, Figs. 5, 6, 9, 11 with ¶0159-¶0162, ¶0175-¶0179, ¶0197 – personalized menu is displayed including the recommended object based on user group and application use history. Levy, ¶0048, ¶0159, ¶0283, ¶0297-¶0305 – a mixture of related items and promotions or items from a different category are chosen to be displayed. Promotions can be employed when recommendations based on similarity/likelihood do not exist. ¶0219-¶0220, ¶0230-¶0240 – promotions can be forced into the list despite not being identified as not correlated for inclusion in the list. ¶0049, ¶0439 – using negative correlations for recommendations. For example, regarding the target item, using the negative preferences of a user with opposite taste).
Regarding claim 7, Han as modified discloses the elements of claim 6 above, and further discloses wherein the plurality of second applications comprise a non-used application of the electronic device (Levy, ¶0048, ¶0159, ¶0283, ¶0297-¶0305 – a mixture of related items and promotions or items from a different category are chosen to be displayed. Promotions can be employed when recommendations based on similarity/likelihood do not exist. ¶0159 – new items recommended. Abstract, ¶0020, ¶0052, ¶0104, ¶0215, ¶0576 – non-acted upon items).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the recommended items of Han to include non-used applications based on the teachings of Levy. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable incorporation of new or promotional items or to fill out recommendations when there are insufficient top ranked recommendations (Levy, ¶0283).
Regarding claim 8, Han as modified discloses the elements of claim 7 above, and further discloses updating a first configuration of the plurality of first applications, based on a predetermined condition; updating, based on information about the plurality of first applications having the updated first configuration, a second configuration of the plurality of second applications to be recommended to the user of the electronic device; and updating the personalized application menu to include the plurality of first applications having the updated first configuration and the plurality of second applications having the updated second configuration (Han, Figs. 17, 19 with ¶0120, ¶0233-¶0236, ¶0249-¶0250 – updated information from similar users results in updated recommendations).
Regarding claim 10, Han as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the application use history comprises statistical data, generated based on at least one of a use duration time, a use time slot, a use day, or a number of execution times of an application (Han, ¶0115-¶0116 – use frequency (execution times per duration time). ¶0132 – creation date (use time slot, use day)).
Regarding claim 11, Han discloses an electronic device for displaying a personalized menu, the electronic device comprising: a communication interface; an input interface to which one or more sources are to be connected; a display; a memory storing one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to (Han, Figs. 4 and 7 with ¶0107-¶0110, ¶0175, ¶0320 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory to display a personalized menu on a display. ¶0065, ¶0070 – communication interface between device and server, server is a source for application recommendation information. See also ¶0110 – recommended sound source):
obtain an application use history of the electronic device; based on the application use history of the electronic device, determine plurality of first applications, which are used applications of the electronic device, wherein each of the first applications of the plurality of first application has a
identify a user group including a user of the electronic device, based on information about the plurality of first applications; perform a correlation analysis with respect to a plurality of applications including the plurality of first applications, based on an application use history of other electronic devices of the user group (Han, Fig. 14 with ¶0119-¶0120, ¶0227-¶0229 – a user group of users similar to the device user are identified, and usage patterns with respect to the objects selected by other users are used to inform the recommendation. Figs. 5 and 6 with ¶0159-¶0162 – personalized menu is displayed including the recommended objects. See also Fig. 9 with ¶0175-¶0179);
based on a result of the correlation analysis and the information about the plurality of first applications, determine plurality of second applications to be recommended to the user of the electronic device; generate a personalized application menu including the plurality of first applications and the plurality of second applications,
However, Han as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Levy discloses recommending items to users that users are likely to act upon (Levy, Abstract) based on historical data (Levy, ¶0094-¶0095), including
wherein, in the personalized application menu, the plurality of first applications have a higher priority than the plurality of second applications (Levy, ¶0181-¶0187, ¶0509, ¶0532, ¶0550-¶0551 – items are sorted according to relevancy for recommendation, the top scoring items are included. The top scoring items will not have the same rank. ¶0048, ¶0159, ¶0283, ¶0297-¶0305 – a mixture of related items and promotions or items from a different category are chosen to be displayed. Promotions can be employed when recommendations based on similarity/likelihood do not exist).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the recommended items of Han to include applications with differing priorities based on the teachings of Levy. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable incorporation of promotional items or to fill out recommendations when there are insufficient top ranked recommendations (Levy, ¶0283).
However, Han as modified appears not to expressly disclose wherein each of the first applications of the plurality of first application has a use time greater than a threshold. However, in the same field of endeavor, Li discloses application recommendations (Li, Abstract with Fig. 2 and ¶0049), including
wherein each of the recommended first applications of the plurality of first application has a use time greater than a threshold (Li, Fig. 2 with ¶0050, ¶0052, ¶0089, ¶0091 – applications are recommended based on usage time exceeding a threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the recommended items of Han to include applications with usage time exceeding a threshold based on the teachings of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the effectiveness and accuracy of recommended items.
Regarding claim 12, Han as modified discloses the elements of claim 11. However, Han appears not to expressly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the plurality of instructions to: calculate correlation coefficients between the plurality of applications by using a correlation analysis algorithm; and based on the correlation coefficients, determine: correlation applications having a positive correlation with respect to the plurality of first applications, non-correlation applications having no correlation with respect to the plurality of first applications, and inverse-correlation applications having a negative correlation with respect to the plurality of first applications (Levy, ¶0440-¶0443 – calculated correlation coefficients used to inform recommendations. Positive and negative correlations identified. Fig. 1 with ¶0052, ¶0104, ¶0215, ¶0297-¶0305, ¶0576– non-correlation items identified and weighted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the correlation analysis of Han to include positive, negative and no correlation based on the teachings of Levy. The motivation for doing so would have been to more accurately recommend new items (Levy, ¶0159), and to leverage data regarding users that have opposite taste for information recommendations (Levy, ¶0439).
Regarding claim 13, Han as modified discloses the elements of claim 12 above, and further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to determine at least one of the correlation applications as the plurality of second applications (Han, Figs. 5, 6, 9, 11 with ¶0159-¶0162, ¶0175-¶0179, ¶0197 – personalized menu is displayed including the recommended object based on user group and application use history).
Regarding claim 14, Han as modified discloses the elements of claim 12 above, and further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to determine at least one of the non-correlation applications as the plurality of second applications (Levy, ¶0048, ¶0159, ¶0283, ¶0297-¶0305 – a mixture of related items and promotions or items from a different category are chosen to be displayed. Promotions can be employed when recommendations based on similarity/likelihood do not exist. ¶0219-¶0220, ¶0230-¶0240 – promotions can be forced into the list despite not being identified as not correlated for inclusion in the list).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the recommended items of Han to include non-correlation applications based on the teachings of Levy. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable incorporation of promotional items or to fill out recommendations when there are insufficient top ranked recommendations (Levy, ¶0283).
Regarding claim 15, Han as modified discloses the elements of claim 12 above, and further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to determine at least one of the inverse-correlation applications as the plurality of second applications (Levy, ¶0049, ¶0439 – using negative correlations for recommendations. For example, regarding the target item, using the negative preferences of a user with opposite taste).
Regarding claim 16, Han as modified discloses the elements of claim 12 above, and further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: receive, from the user of the electronic device, the user's input for requesting a recommendation of the plurality of second applications; and based on the user's input, determine the plurality of second applications as an application classified as one of the correlation applications, the non-correlation applications, and the inverse-correlation applications (Han, Figs. 5, 6, 9, 11 with ¶0159-¶0162, ¶0175-¶0179, ¶0197 – personalized menu is displayed including the recommended object based on user group and application use history. Levy, ¶0048, ¶0159, ¶0283, ¶0297-¶0305 – a mixture of related items and promotions or items from a different category are chosen to be displayed. Promotions can be employed when recommendations based on similarity/likelihood do not exist. ¶0219-¶0220, ¶0230-¶0240 – promotions can be forced into the list despite not being identified as not correlated for inclusion in the list. ¶0049, ¶0439 – using negative correlations for recommendations. For example, regarding the target item, using the negative preferences of a user with opposite taste).
Regarding claim 17, Han as modified discloses the elements of claim 16 above, and further discloses wherein the plurality of second applications comprise a non-used application of the electronic device (Levy, ¶0048, ¶0159, ¶0283, ¶0297-¶0305 – a mixture of related items and promotions or items from a different category are chosen to be displayed. Promotions can be employed when recommendations based on similarity/likelihood do not exist. ¶0159 – new items recommended. Abstract, ¶0020, ¶0052, ¶0104, ¶0215, ¶0576 – non-acted upon items).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the recommended items of Han to include non-used applications based on the teachings of Levy. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable incorporation of new or promotional items or to fill out recommendations when there are insufficient top ranked recommendations (Levy, ¶0283).
Regarding claim 18, Han as modified discloses the elements of claim 17 above, and further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: update a first configuration of the plurality of first applications, based on a predetermined condition; update, based on information about the plurality of first applications having the updated first configuration, a second configuration of the plurality of second applications to be recommended to the user of the electronic device; and update the personalized application menu to include the plurality of first applications having the updated first configuration and the plurality of second applications having the updated second configuration (Han, Figs. 17, 19 with ¶0120, ¶0233-¶0236, ¶0249-¶0250 – updated information from similar users results in updated recommendations).
Regarding claim 20, Han discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing computer program, which, when executable by at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to execute (Han, Figs. 4 and 7 with ¶0107-¶0110, ¶0175, ¶0320 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory to display a personalized menu on a display):
obtain an application use history of the electronic device; based on the application use history of the electronic device, determine plurality of first applications, which are used applications of the electronic device, wherein each of the first applications of the plurality of application
identify a user group including a user of the electronic device, based on information about the plurality of first applications; perform a correlation analysis with respect to a plurality of applications including the plurality of first applications, based on an application use history of other electronic devices of the user group (Han, Fig. 14 with ¶0119-¶0120, ¶0227-¶0229 – a user group of users similar to the device user are identified, and usage patterns with respect to the objects selected by other users are used to inform the recommendation. Figs. 5 and 6 with ¶0159-¶0162 – personalized menu is displayed including the recommended objects. See also Fig. 9 with ¶0175-¶0179);
based on a result of the correlation analysis and the information about the plurality of first applications, determine plurality of second applications to be recommended to the user of the electronic device; generate a personalized application menu including the plurality of first applications and the plurality of second applications,
However, Han as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Levy discloses recommending items to users that users are likely to act upon (Levy, Abstract) based on historical data (Levy, ¶0094-¶0095), including
wherein, in the personalized application menu, the plurality of first applications have a higher priority than the plurality of second applications (Levy, ¶0181-¶0187, ¶0509, ¶0532, ¶0550-¶0551 – items are sorted according to relevancy for recommendation, the top scoring items are included. The top scoring items will not have the same rank. ¶0048, ¶0159, ¶0283, ¶0297-¶0305 – a mixture of related items and promotions or items from a different category are chosen to be displayed. Promotions can be employed when recommendations based on similarity/likelihood do not exist).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the recommended items of Han to include applications with differing priorities based on the teachings of Levy. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable incorporation of promotional items or to fill out recommendations when there are insufficient top ranked recommendations (Levy, ¶0283).
However, Han as modified appears not to expressly disclose wherein each of the first applications of the plurality of first application has a use time greater than a threshold. However, in the same field of endeavor, Li discloses application recommendations (Li, Abstract with Fig. 2 and ¶0049), including
wherein each of the recommended first applications of the plurality of first application has a use time greater than a threshold (Li, Fig. 2 with ¶0050, ¶0052, ¶0089, ¶0091 – applications are recommended based on usage time exceeding a threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the recommended items of Han to include applications with usage time exceeding a threshold based on the teachings of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the effectiveness and accuracy of recommended items.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Levy in further view of Li in further view of Sigiura.
Regarding claim 21, Han as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above. However, Han as modified does not appear to expressly disclose wherein generating the personalized application menu comprises: as a result of the plurality of first applications having a higher priority than the plurality of second applications, arranging the first plurality of applications adjacent to a focused tile.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sigiura discloses displaying recommended items (Sigiura, Abstract with ¶0097), including
wherein generating the personalized application menu comprises: as a result of the plurality of first applications having a higher priority than the plurality of second applications, arranging the first plurality of applications adjacent to a focused tile (Sugiura, Figs. 4 and 12 with ¶0107-¶0111 and ¶0170 – personalized menu is arranged in order of descending priority from the left adjacent to a focused selected tile).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the recommended items of Han to include sorting in order of likelihood of selection based on the teachings of Han. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable users to more easily find and select desired items from among many options (Sigiura, ¶0005-¶0006, ¶0132).
Regarding claim 22, Han as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above. However, Han as modified does not appear to expressly disclose wherein generating the personalized application menu comprises: as a result of the plurality of first applications having a higher priority than the plurality of second applications: arranging the plurality of first applications in a line on the personalized application menu; and arranging the plurality of second applications in the line on the personalized application menu to the right of the plurality of first applications
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sigiura discloses displaying recommended items (Sigiura, Abstract with ¶0097), including
wherein generating the personalized application menu comprises: as a result of the plurality of first applications having a higher priority than the plurality of second applications: arranging the plurality of first applications in a line on the personalized application menu; and arranging the plurality of second applications in the line on the personalized application menu to the right of the plurality of first applications (Sugiura, Figs. 4 and 12 with ¶0107-¶0111 and ¶0170 – personalized menu is arranged in order of descending priority from the left adjacent to a focused selected tile).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the recommended items of Han to include sorting in order of likelihood of selection based on the teachings of Han. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable users to more easily find and select desired items from among many options (Sigiura, ¶0005-¶0006, ¶0132).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain 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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). 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.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights