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 Final Rejection is filed in response to Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment filed 06/22/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 19-26, 28-31, and 33-35 are amended.
Claims 1, 2, and 18-35 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Argument 1, Applicant argues in Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment filed 06/22/2026 on pg. 2-3 that the prior art fails to teach,
“after a received message is displayed in a conversation interface,
interface switching with respect to that message is performed by switching from the conversation interface to a separate detail page of the message, and then returning to the conversation interface from that detail page. The shortcut operation control corresponding to the message is displayed in the conversation interface in response to the interface switching”.
Response to Argument 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees notes that the BRI for “a conversation interface”, encompasses a text message interface displaying a text message without a tapback menu, that the BRI for “interface switching… to a separate detail page…” encompasses switching to a combined display of a separate tapback shortcut menu corresponding to the selected text message after a long touch, and that the BRI for “displaying at least one shortcut operation control…”, encompasses how the tapback shortcut menu displays at least one tapback operation control. The examiner notes that applicant’s own specification defines a shortcut operation control in para. [0040] as “the shortcut operation control may include a shortcut emoticon reply control (referred to as an emoticon control)”. Thus when read in light of the specification, the BRI for the primary claim limitations, “displaying a received first message in a conversation interface page; and in response to interface switching, displaying at least one shortcut operation control corresponding to the first message in the conversation interface, wherein the interface switching comprises: switching to a detail page of the first message, triggered by a current user in the conversation interface, wherein the detail page of the first message is a separate interface for displaying detail information of the first message, and returning to the conversation interface”, would encompass starting with the display of a text message in a default text message window, switching to a display interface that displays the corresponding tapback menu separate from the display of the text message, and subsequently returning to the default text message window after the message has been read by the user and an appropriate tapback response is selected.
Argument 2, Applicant argues in Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment filed 06/22/2026 on pg. 2-4 that prior art Rinzler fails to teach the limitation, “a detail page”.
Response to Argument 2, the examiner notes that in an updated mapping for the primary claim, Rinzler is no longer relied upon to teach the limitation, “a detail page”. The examiner notes that an updated mapping using iGeeksBlog is used to teach the above limitation, and in response to applicant's arguments regarding how Rinzler does not teach limitations that have been mapped as taught by the prior art iGeeksBlog, this is an argument that is against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Argument 3, Applicant argues in Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment filed 06/22/2026 on pg. 4-5 that, the proposed combination does not render claim 1 obvious.
Response to Argument 3, the examiner notes that in an updated mapping for the primary claim, Rinzler is no longer relied upon to teach the limitation. However, the examiner notes that the combination of iGeeksBlog and Rinzler would have been proper. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, One would have been motivated to combine the attention metrics of Rinzler with the interface jumping within a chat session of iGeeksBlog as the combination ensures a viewing user has greater comprehension of content before initiation a subsequent action related to the viewed content.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 18-19, 26-27, 30-33, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by iGeeksBlog. (2016, June 29). How to React, Change, Remove Emoji Tapbacks in iMessage in iOS 10. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Cz0oRo6-o, hereinafter “iGeeksBlog”.
Claim 1:
iGeeksBlog teaches a method of message processing, comprising: displaying a received first message in a conversation interface page (i.e. [0:32], “just tap and hold the message There are six options, Choose the one you like”, wherein it is noted that the BRI for a first message encompasses the “happy birthday” message and wherein the Bri for a conversation interface encompasses the regular messaging interface); and in response to interface switching (i.e. [0:32], “just tap and hold the message There are six options, Choose the one you like”, wherein it is noted that the BRI for interface switching encompasses in which the user selects a first message content to display additional options related to the message), displaying at least one shortcut operation control corresponding to the first message in the conversation interface (i.e. [0:32], wherein it is noted that the BRI for displaying at least one shortcut operation control encompasses displaying a menu for reacting to the corresponding message when an intent to view a message is detected),
wherein the interface switching comprises:
switching to a detail page of the first message, triggered by a current user in the conversation interface (i.e. [00:38], “and here you go. Your reaction is sent”, wherein it is noted that a user witches to a tap-back detail page for the first message, triggered by the user’s long tap on the message. Wherein the BRI for a detail page of the first message encompasses the tapback interface), wherein the detail page of the first message is a separate interface for displaying detail information of the first message (i.e. [00:38], “and here you go. Your reaction is sent”, wherein it is noted that the tapback interface detail page is separate from the message display itself. Wherein the BRI for separate encompasses how the tapback interface has a separate defined display area from the display area containing the first message), and
returning to the conversation interface (i.e. [00:38], “and here you go. Your reaction is sent”, wherein it is noted that once the user selects a tapback option, the interface is returned to the regular conversation interface).
Claim 2:
iGeeksBlog teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one shortcut operation control comprises at least one of a shortcut processing control or a shortcut reply control, the shortcut processing control is configured to process the first message with a predetermined function, the shortcut reply control is configured to reply to the first message (i.e. [0:32], wherein it is noted that the BRI for a shortcut processing control or a shortcut reply control encompasses how a reaction is a predetermined function that may be construed as a reply to the message).
Claim 18:
iGeeksBlog teaches the method according to claim 1,
further comprising:
determining whether a predetermined condition is satisfied (i.e. [00:38], “and here you go. Your reaction is sent”, wherein it is noted that the BRI for a predetermined condition encompasses the selection of a tapback).
Claim 19:
iGeeksBlog teaches the method according to claim 18.
iGeeksBlog teaches
wherein determining whether the predetermined condition is satisfied comprises: determining, based on target data, whether the predetermined condition is satisfied, wherein the target data comprises at least one of first data and second data, the first data comprises data generated from a message content of the first message while the detail page is viewed by the current user (i.e. [00:38], “and here you go. Your reaction is sent”, wherein it is noted that the BRI for a first data encompasses how tapback selection data is generated from a user selecting a tapback option for the first message viewing the message and selecting an appropriate tapback option) and the second data corresponding to the message content of the first message (i.e. [00:38], “and here you go. Your reaction is sent”, wherein it is noted that the BRI for second data encompasses how the selected tapback content is displayed above the corresponding first message) .
Claim 26:
iGeeksBlog teaches the method according to claim 1,
iGeeksBlog further teaches wherein displaying at least one shortcut operation control corresponding to the first message in the conversation page comprises: displaying, in the conversation page, at least one shortcut operation control corresponding to the first message and associated with the current user (i.e. [0:32], wherein it is noted that the BRI for at least one shortcut operation control encompasses the tapback reaction page that is associated with the viewing user).
Claim 27:
iGeeksBlog teaches the method according to claim 2,
iGeeksBlog teaches wherein the shortcut reply control comprises at least one of an emoticon control, a text control, a picture control, and an audio/video control (i.e. [0:32], wherein it is noted that the BRI for an emoticon control encompasses a reaction reply).
Claim 30:
Claim 30 is the device claim reciting similar limitations to Claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 31:
Claim 31 is the device claim reciting similar limitations to claim 2 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 32:
Claim 32 is the device claim reciting similar limitations to claim 18 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 33:
Claim 33 is the device claim reciting similar limitations to claim 19 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 35:
Claim 35 is the medium claim reciting similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
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.
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.
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) 20-25, 28-29, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over iGeeksBlog. (2016, June 29). How to React, Change, Remove Emoji Tapbacks in iMessage in iOS 10. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Cz0oRo6-o, hereinafter “iGeeksBlog” and further in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200013076 “Rinzler”.
Claim 20:
iGeeksBlog teaches the method according to claim 19.
While iGeeksBlog teaches checking for first and second data corresponding to a tapback option for a certain viewed message as part of a predetermined condition to return to the normal messaging interface, iGeeksBlog may not explicitly teach
inputting the target data into a predetermined model, wherein the predetermined model is configured to determine an attention value of the current user for a present message
and determining, based on an output result of the predetermined model, whether the attention value is in a predetermined range, and in response to a determining result that the attention value falls into the predetermined range, determining that the predetermined condition is satisfied.
However, Rinzler teaches wherein determining, based on the target data, whether the predetermined condition is satisfied comprises: inputting the target data into a predetermined model, wherein the predetermined model is configured to determine an attention value of the current user for a present message (i.e. para. [0023], “In instances where the displayed text or video might be small, the member may have to enlarge certain sections of the screen to actually read or see relevant portions. Very large or Tiny print may also be used as a verification technique. For example, the member may be prompted to enlarge or decrease the size of the screen, and then enter a verification character only visible at the new display size, as a verification method. Enlarging or decreasing the display itself in response to the prompt may also be used as a verification technique. Any of these techniques can be used individually or in combination with other mechanisms for encouraging or ensuring that the member is paying attention to and, if desired, continuously engaging with the survey video”, wherein the BRI for a model encompasses a series of verification techniques that are used to determine if a user if paying attention to a video ); and determining, based on an output result of the predetermined model, whether the attention value is in a predetermined range, and in response to a determining result that the attention value falls into the predetermined range, determining that the predetermined condition is satisfied (i.e. para. [0030], “the system determines whether the viewer has exited the video or the associated survey before completion. For example, this may be an active exit where the viewer manually exits the video, or a passive exit where the system exits the video in response to the viewer failing a viewer verification”, wherein the BRI for a predetermined range encompasses a pass or fail range. Wherein a user fails a verification technique has an attention value of fail and will not be shown an exit survey).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add inputting the target data into a predetermined model, wherein the predetermined model is configured to determine an attention value of the current user for a present message and determining, based on an output result of the predetermined model, whether the attention value is in a predetermined range, and in response to a determining result that the attention value falls into the predetermined range, determining that the predetermined condition is satisfied, with the interface switching for a messaging interface of iGeeksBlog, with the condition to display a certain messaging page is dependent on a predetermined condition such as an attention value, as taught by Rinzler. One would have been motivated to combine the attention metrics of Rinzler with the interface switching within a chat session of iGeeksBlog as the combination ensures a viewing user has greater comprehension of content before initiation of a subsequent action related to the viewed content.
Claim 21:
iGeeksBlog teaches the method according to claim 1.
iGeeksBlog may explicitly teach
wherein a message type of the first message comprises at least one of a picture and a video.
However, Rinzler teaches
wherein a message type of the first message comprises at least one of a picture and a video (i.e. para. [0037], “If the viewer does consent, the “yes” branch is followed from step 44 to step 45, in which the system to play the video while recording the viewer”, wherein it is noted that the BRI for one of a picture and a video encompasses the video advertisement and picture frames that make up the video).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add wherein a message type of the first message comprises at least one of a picture and a video, to the interface switching of iGeeksBlog, with wherein a message type of the first message comprises at least one of a picture and a video, as taught by Rinzler. One would have been motivated to combine the video message of Rinzler with the interface switching within a chat session of iGeeksBlog as the combination results in a greater variety of media comprehension which reduces member distractions, reduces member drop-off once they start the videos, and increases the quality of the member responses (Rinzler. Para. [0021]).
Claim 22:
iGeeksBlog teaches the method according to claim 19.
iGeeksBlog may not explicitly teach
wherein the first data comprises at least one of: a display duration, a number of times of display and a displayed proportion of the message content of the first message on the detail interface at least one of an operation type and an operation result of a display controlling operation performed by the current user for the message content of the first message on the detail interface and at least one of an operation type and an operation result of an interactive operation, performed by the current user, based on the message content of the first message on the detail interface.
However, Rinzler teaches wherein the first data comprises at least one of: a display duration, a number of times of display and a displayed proportion of the message content of the first message on the detail interface (i.e. para. [0030], “Step 27 is followed by step 28, in which the system determines whether the complete video has played. If the complete video has played the “yes” branch is followed from step 28 to step 29, in which the system activates the survey to receive one or more answers from the viewer. In other words, the viewer is allowed to answer the survey question only after the complete video has played”, wherein a pop-up survey question corresponding to the video content may only be displayed when a whole video has been displayed and viewed at least once by a user); at least one of an operation type and an operation result of a display controlling operation performed by the current user for the message content of the first message on the detail interface (i.e. para. [0030], “Step 27 is followed by step 28, in which the system determines whether the complete video has played. If the complete video has played the “yes” branch is followed from step 28 to step 29”, wherein the BRI for an operation type and result for a display controlling operation encompasses playing a video by a user and how much of the video has been played); and at least one of an operation type and an operation result of an interactive operation, performed by the current user, based on the message content of the first message on the detail interface (i.e. para. [0015], “certain video control items 15, such as fast-forward, rewind and mute, may be disabled until the video has been completed”, wherein the BRI for an operation type and result of an interactive operation encompasses any type of control that such as a user interaction and attention to a duration and content of a video).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add wherein the first data comprises at least one of: a display duration, a number of times of display and a displayed proportion of the message content of the first message on the detail interface at least one of an operation type and an operation result of a display controlling operation performed by the current user for the message content of the first message on the detail interface and at least one of an operation type and an operation result of an interactive operation, performed by the current user, based on the message content of the first message on the detail interface, to the interface switching of iGeeksBlog, with wherein a display duration metric is used to trigger a subsequent display operation, as taught by Rinzler. One would have been motivated to combine the video message tracking metrics of Rinzler with the interface switching within a chat session of iGeeksBlog as the combination results in a greater variety of media comprehension which reduces member distractions, reduces member drop-off once they start the videos, and increases the quality of the member responses (Rinzler. Para. [0021]).
Claim 23:
iGeeksBlog and Rinzler teach the method according to claim 22.
Rinzler further teaches wherein the message type of the first message comprises a picture (i.e. para. [0037], “If the viewer does consent, the “yes” branch is followed from step 44 to step 45, in which the system to play the video while recording the viewer”, wherein it is noted that a video type of message comprises at least one picture) and the operation type of the display controlling operation comprises at least one of zooming in, zooming out, and dragging (i.e. para. [0023], “In instances where the displayed text or video might be small, the member may have to enlarge certain sections of the screen to actually read or see relevant portions. Very large or Tiny print may also be used as a verification technique. For example, the member may be prompted to enlarge or decrease the size of the screen, and then enter a verification character only visible at the new display size, as a verification method. Enlarging or decreasing the display itself in response to the prompt may also be used as a verification technique. Any of these techniques can be used individually or in combination with other mechanisms for encouraging or ensuring that the member is paying attention to and, if desired, continuously engaging with the survey video”, wherein the system may check for an attention metric by seeing if a user is engaging with an operation type of zooming in or zooming out a display in order to enter a verification character).
Claim 24:
iGeeksBlog and Rinzler teach the method according to claim 22.
Rinzler teaches wherein a message type of the first message comprises a video, and the operation type of the display controlling operation comprises at least one of pause, playback and progress adjustment (i.e. para. [0032], “the survey video begins, typically in response to the survey participant (member or viewer)”, wherein it is noted that a user may play a predetermined video and the BRI for the operation type encompasses a user beginning the playback of a video).
Claim 25:
iGeeksBlog and Rinzler teach the method according to claim 22.
iGeeksBlog teaches wherein the first message comprises interactable content, and the interactive operation based on the message content of the first message comprises at least one of interactive operations directed to the interactable content and a creator of the interactable content (i.e. [0:32], wherein it is noted that in a test message chain between at least two users a receiving user may tapback and interact with a message based on the content of the message sent by a sending user).
Claim 28:
iGeeksBlog teaches the method according to claim 19.
iGeeksBlog may not explicitly teach
wherein the second data comprises: a target content type corresponding to the message content of the predetermined message, and data generated by historical content matching the target content type in a process of being viewed by the current user.
However, Rinzler teaches wherein the second data comprises: a target content type corresponding to the message content of the predetermined message, and data generated by historical content matching the target content type in a process of being viewed by the current user (i.e. para. [0013], “Video viewing candidates may be qualified for viewing certain videos and selected in a priority order, for example by meeting certain demographic conditions, having certain topics of interest identified in their social media profiles”, wherein it is noted that a user may be sent a certain premeditated survey video to be opened based on their historical topics of interest).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add wherein the second data comprises: a target content type corresponding to the message content of the predetermined message, and data generated by historical content matching the target content type in a process of being viewed by the current user, to the interface switching of iGeeksBlog, with tracking a target content type corresponding to the message content of the predetermined message, and data generated by historical content matching the target content type in a process of being viewed by the current user, as taught by Rinzler. One would have been motivated to combine the video message tracking metrics of Rinzler with the interface switching within a chat session of iGeeksBlog as the combination results in a greater variety of media comprehension which reduces member distractions, reduces member drop-off once they start the videos, and increases the quality of the member responses (Rinzler. Para. [0021]).
Claim 29:
iGeeksBlog teaches the method according to claim 19.
While iGeeksBlog teaches a conversation interface, iGeeksBlog may not explicitly teach
wherein the conversation interface is a group conversation interface with a predetermined topic and wherein the target data further comprises third data, and the third data comprises data generated while the first message is viewed by a predetermined user within a group, the predetermined user excluding the current user
However, Rinzler teaches
wherein the conversation interface is a group conversation interface with a predetermined topic (i.e. para. [0012], “The video survey requester may be charged (e.g., $2 per response), and the users of the participating mobile communication devices may be compensated (e.g., $1 per response) on a per-response basis”, wherein it is noted that the BRI for a group conversation interface encompasses a group of a survey taker and the system that receives the survey response. Wherein a survey requestion formulates a survey video and a surveying users send back responses to the survey video), and wherein the target data further comprises third data, and the third data comprises data generated while the first message is viewed by a predetermined user within a group, the predetermined user excluding the current user (i.e. para. [0017]. “Additionally, video status information regarding other members usage can also be sent to members as well. For example, the pop-up message window 17 may display a ping informing members that X amount of members are currently watching the video out of Y amount of members that need to be polled as per the customer’s request. This information may also include, for example, how many (or what percentage of) members are at a specific point of the video (e.g., 25% complete, 50% complete, 75% complete, etc.)”, wherein the BRI for third data encompasses viewing data about other users than a viewing user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add wherein the conversation interface is a group conversation interface with a predetermined topic and wherein the target data further comprises third data, and the third data comprises data generated while the first message is viewed by a predetermined user within a group, the predetermined user excluding the current user, to the interface switching of a conversation interface of iGeeksBlog, with data is tracked for predetermined groups of users within a survey conversation interface, as taught by Rinzler. One would have been motivated to combine the video message tracking metrics of Rinzler with the interface switching within a chat session of iGeeksBlog as the combination results in a greater variety of media comprehension which reduces member distractions, reduces member drop-off once they start the videos, and increases the quality of the member responses (Rinzler. Para. [0021]).
Claim 34:
Claim 34 is the device claim reciting similar limitations to claim 20 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190354999 “Rogers” teaches in para. [0193], the input devices 204 may include an audio input device 240, such as a microphone or array of microphones, and an attention tracking module 242. The attention tracking module 242 may be, for example, a device for directly tracking the user's attention (e.g., eye-tracking hardware that monitors the location to which the user's eyes are directed), a device for indirectly tracking the user's attention (e.g., a virtual reality headset that determines the location in which the user is looking based on accelerometer or compass data indicating the direction in which the user is pointing their head), and/or logic for imputing the user's attention based on the user's behavior (e.g., logic for interpreting a user's mouse clicks on a canvas or analyzing a survey response).
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 DAVID H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7433. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Cesar Paula can be reached at (571) 272-4128. 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.
/D.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2145
/CESAR B PAULA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2145
Prosecution Insights