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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot in new ground of rejection as discussed below.
With respect to Applicant’s remarks that Application notes the double patenting rejection and will consider filing a terminal disclaimer when the claims are otherwise indicated as allowable (page 9), the double patenting rejection is sustained since terminal disclaimer has not been filed.
Applicant argues Chen, including the portions of Ellis and E892 incorporated by reference and further in view of one or more of Lonas, Haghighat, and Zachman, fails to disclose or suggest at least highlighted portions of claim 1 (i.e., wherein a time-to-live (TTL) is set for the at least the portion of the content stored in the cached, …for a period of time based at least in part on the TTL; increasing the TTL set for the at least the portion of content) because even if Chen describes a rewind command that incidentally leads to a piece of content lasting in a cache for a longer period of time than if the rewind command had not occurred, Chen/Ellis/892 does not teach or suggest “causing…at least a portion of content to be stored in a cache, wherein a time-to-live (TTL) is set for the at least period of the content stored in the cache, and wherein the at least the portion of the content is stored……” as recited in amended claim 1; Chen does not describe the features of claim 1 because Chen does not relate to storing a piece of content in a cache for a set of period of time. Rather, Chen is related to determining an object of interest during an advertisement and showing more information related to the object of interest in a future advertisement Chen does not describe association of a TTL with a portion of content stored at a cache, and Chen does not describe any increasing of a TTL associated with the content, as recited in claim 1. Ellis and ‘892 do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to Chen because Chen, Ellis, and ‘892 merely describe a single decision (i.e., a decision to set a buffer setting as “delete after view”). A user may rewind a piece of content which indirectly extends the length of time the piece of content is buffer. However, there is no second decision made or action taken by the system to affect the content buffering. In Chen, Ellis, and 892, there is not teaching or suggestion of multiple actions being taken to adjust a buffer time of a piece of content based on a user rewinding the content. Lonas, Haghighat, and Zachman are only cited with respect to a “time/date associated with at least portion of content comprises a time-to-live (TTL). Thus, the Office has not shown that Lonas, Haghighat, and Zachman remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to Chen, Ellis, and ‘892. Therefore, claim 1 is patentable (pages 6-9). This argument is respectfully traversed.
It is noted that the amended claims do not recite “single decision” or “multiple actions being taken to set/adjusts a buffer time of a piece of content based on a user rewinding the content”. In fact, Chen and its fully incorporated by references, including Ellis and ‘892 describes a time (e.g., time after viewing or particular time/date) associated with portion of content stored in the cache for deleting the stored content (see for example, Ellis: figure 38, paragraphs 0022, 0320).
Chen, with Ellis and E892, also discloses increasing, based on the indication of the trickplay command to rewind the content, an amount of time the at least the portion of the content is stored in the cache (Chen in view of Ellis discloses recorded/cached content is deleted when the cached content is viewed (“deleting after view”). Chen in view of Ellis also discloses when user rewind content to previous point, additional content including metadata relating to the media content or previous portion of content is stored – see include, but are not limited to, Chen: paragraphs 0004-0005, 0007-0010, 0049; Ellis: figures 38-39, 49-51, 61, 96-99, 103, paragraphs 0022, 0030, 0319, 0351, 0356, 0440-0446-0458; E892: figures 6A-6B, 22, 30, col. 12, lines 56-63. Thus, an amount of time at least a portion of the content is stored in the cache/buffer is increased as a result of subsequent portion of content is not viewed due to rewind operation or amount of time increases to include the time of previous portion of content).
Ellis also discloses providing option with a time/date to delete recorded content of program as shown in, for example, figure 38, items 934, 936, 938, 940 and paragraphs 0319-0320). Thus, the date set to automatically delete the recorded program is not edition is made could be read on the claimed term “time-to-live (TLL) associated with the at least portion of the content. However, to provide a clear support for the teaching of “time-to-live (TTL)” is set for at least a portion of the content stored in cache is well-known in the art, Chundi (US 20210034668: see include, but are not limited to figures 1A-2D discloses a time period such as 1 day, one week, etc. is set for at least a portion/clip of the content stored in cache/storage before deleting the portion/clip of the content) is relied on as one example for the teaching as discussed below.
See also US 20250175536 (e.g., para. 0017, claim 1) or US 20210263779 (see for example, paragraphs 0088, 0530-0531, 0534) or Zachman et al. (US 20180309840: paragraphs 0067-0069); US 20210037287 (paragraphs 0018, 0073).
For reasons given above, rejections of claims 1-19 are discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20210034668) in view of Chundi et al. (US 20210297718).
Note: all documents that are directly or indirectly incorporated by reference in their entireties in Chen, (see paragraphs 0053, 0075, 0078, 0080, 0098, 0106) including US 20020174430 (hereinafter referred to as Ellis), US 7761892 (referred to as E892) or Chundi (see paragraphs 0031, 0040, 0077), are treated as part of the specification of Chen (see for example, MPEP 2163.07 b).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a method comprising:
receiving, from a user device, a request to output content on the user device (receiving, from a user device, a request to output/present/play/store/buffer content on the user equipment device – see include, but not limited to, Chen: figure 2, paragraphs 0045, 0048; Ellis: figures 6, 17, 37-49-51, 97, paragraphs 0174, 0292, 0299-0300);
causing, based on the request, at least a portion of the content to be stored in a cache, wherein a time is set for at least a portion of the content stored in the cache, and wherein the at least the portion of the content is stored in the cache for a period of time based on at least in part on an indication of time/date (causing, based on the request of recording/buffering and/or playback, at least a portion of the content to be recorded/buffered in a cache/buffer, wherein a time period is set for the at least a portion of the content/program stored in the cache/buffer for a period of time based at least in part on an indication of time/date associated with the at least the portion of content/program as set by user – see include, but not limited to, Chen: figure 4, paragraphs 0006, 0051, 0067, 0073, 0077-78; Ellis: figures 6, 29-30, 34, 38, 49-51, 96-98, paragraphs 0028-0032, 0319-0320, 0440-0457 and discussion in “response to arguments” above) ;
receiving, from the user device, an indication of a trickplay command to rewind the content being output on the user device (receiving, from the user device, an indication of rewind operation to rewind the content/video being output on the user device – see include, but are not limited to, Chen: figures 7-8, paragraphs 0004-0008; Ellis: figures 33, 39-40, 49-50, 97-99) ; and
increasing, based on the indication of the trickplay command to rewind the content, the time/date associated with the at least the portion of the content (Chen in view of Ellis discloses recorded/cached content is deleted when the cached content is viewed (“deleting after view”). Chen in view of Ellis also discloses when user rewind content to previous point, additional content including metadata relating to the media content or previous portion of content is stored – see include, but are not limited to, Chen: paragraphs 0004-0005, 0007-0010, 0049; Ellis: figures 38-39, 49-51, 61, 96-99, 103, paragraphs 0022, 0030, 0319-0320, 0351, 0356, 0440-0446-0458; E892: figures 6A-6B, 22, 30, col. 12, lines 56-63. Thus, the time associated with at least a portion of the content stored in the cache/buffer is increased as a result of subsequent portion of content is not viewed due to rewind operation or time/date increases to include the time of previous portion of content).
Chen does not explicitly discloses “time-to-live (TTL)” is set for the at least portion of content.
Additionally and/or alternatively, Chundi discloses causing, based on a request, at least a portion of the content to be stored in a cache, wherein a time-to-live (TTL) is set for the at least the portion of the content stored in the cache, and wherein the at least the portion content is stored in the cache for a period of time based at least in part on the TTL (interpreted as causing, based on a request to record or request to extend, at least a portion/clip of the content to be stored in a cached/buffer/storage, wherein a time-to-live (read on time period before the expiration or deleting of the content or time period that the content is accessible before deleting) such as 1 day, one week and/or any optimized time set to be extended for the at least the portion/clip of the content stored/recorded in the cache/storage, wherein the at least the portion/clip of content is stored in the cache/storage for a period of time based at least in part on the time period before the expiration of the content or during the time the content is accessible – see include, but are not limited to, Chundi: figures 1a-3, 5-6, 8-9, paragraphs 0027-0028, 0074, 0082);
receiving, from the user device, an indication of a command for the content being output on the user device (receiving, from the user device, a command such as playback or demand related to the content from other users or command to extend/delay deletion of the content stored in the cache - see include, but are not limited to, figures 1a-3, 5-6, 8-9, paragraphs 0027-0028, 0074, 0082);
increasing, based on the indication of the command to the content, the TTL set for the at least the portion of the content (delaying the scheduled deletion date or extend time period for content to be accessed for the clip/portion of the content based on the demand/request to extend access for the media content item or clip of content - see include, but are not limited to, figures 1a-3, 5-6, 8-9, paragraphs 0027-0028, 0033, 0074, 0082).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with the teaching including time-to-live (TTL) is set for the at least portion of content stored in the cache as taught by Chundi in order to yield predictable result of providing user an opportunity to extend availability of the media content item thereby preventing unexpected deleting of interested content – see include, but are not limited to, paragraphs 0001, 0010, 0012).
Regarding claim 2, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the type of the trickplay command comprises at least one of a short rewind command, a long rewind command (e.g., trickplay command comprises at least one of a short rewind such as rewind to a short point/end of current program or long rewind to include open end rewind or end of previous program – see include, but are not limited to, Chen: paragraphs 0007-0008; Ellis, figures 33, 39, 50, 97, paragraphs 0446-0448; E892: figures 6A-6B, col. col. 12, lines 56-63).
Regarding claim 3, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises causing at least a part of the at least the portion of the content stored in the cache to be evicted from the cache (causing a portion/clip of content stored in the cache/storage to be deleted/removed from the cache/storage/buffer – see include, but are not limited to, Chen: paragraphs 0061, 0166; Ellis: paragraphs 0202, 0247, 0420, 0424; E892: col. 27, line 40- col. 28, line 19; Chundi: figures 1a-3, 5-6, 8-9, paragraphs 0027-0028, 0074, 0082).
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving an indication of another trickplay command to play the content, and wherein the increasing the TLL set for the at least the portion of the content is stored in the cache is based on an amount of time between receiving the trickplay command to rewind the content and receiving the trickplay command to play the content (increasing amount of time the at least portion of content is stored in the cache/storage is based on an amount of time between the rewind operation to specific point within the content to which the user wants to return to playback or at terminate point of rewind operation to resume playback – see include, but are not limited to, Chen: paragraphs 0007-0010; Ellis: 0319, 0351, 0356, 0440-0446-0458; E892: figures 6A-6B, 22, 30, col. 12, lines 56-63; Chundi: figures 1a-3, 5-6, 8-9, paragraphs 0027-0028, 0074, 0082).
Regarding claim 5, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the cache comprises at least one of a memory, a storage device, a storage system, or a storage subsystem (see include, but are not limited to, Chen: figures 4-5, paragraphs 0081-0085; Ellis: figures 1, 2C; E892: figures 1-2d, 7-9; Chundi: figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the cache comprises a component of a computing device configured to perform the method (see include, but are not limited to, Chen: figures 4-5, paragraphs 0081-0085; Ellis: figures 1, 2C; E892: figures 1-2d, 7-9; Chundi: figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, limitations that correspond to the limitations of claim 1 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Particularly, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method comprising: receiving, from a user device, a request to output content on the user device (see discussion in the rejection of claim 1);
causing, based on the request, at least a portion of the content to be stored in a cache, wherein a time-to-live (TTL) is set for the at least the portion of the content stored in the cache, and wherein the at least the portion of the content is stored in the cache for a period of time based on the TTL (see discussion in the rejection of claim 1 above);
receiving, from the user device, an indication of a trickplay command to fast forward the content being output on the user device (see include, but are not limited to, Chen: paragraphs 0057-0058, 0150-0151; Ellis: figures 3, 33, 39, paragraphs 0030, 0036; Chundi: figures 1a-3, 5-6, 8-9, paragraphs 0027-0028, 0074, 0082); and
decreasing, based on the indication of the trickplay command to fast forward the content, the TTL set for the at least the portion of the content is stored in the cache (see include, but are not limited to, Chen: paragraphs 0016, 0057-0058; Ellis: figures 38-39, 49-51, 61, 96-99, 103, paragraphs 0030, 0036, 0290, 0292, 0300, 0440-0446-0458; E892: figures 6B, 22, 25B, 30, col. 12, lines 56-61; Chundi: figures 1a-3, 5-6, 8-9, paragraphs 0027-0028, 0074, 0082; and similar explanation corresponding to fast forward command/operation. In particular, when user fast forward content and the subsequent portion of content is viewed quicker or content is not interest, and as a result of “deleting after viewed”, or removing content that is not interest caused by fast forward, amount of time the at least portion of content being fasted forward decreased).
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the type of the trickplay command comprises at least one of a fast forward command or a high speed fast forward command (different fast forward speeds – see include, but are not limited to, Chen: paragraphs 0016, 0058, 0119; Ellis: paragraphs 0036, 0300).
Regarding claim 9, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the method further comprises causing at least a part of the at least the portion of the content stored in the cache to be evicted from the cache (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the decreasing the TTL set for the at least the portion of the content is stored in the cache is based on an amount of time between receiving the trickplay command to fast forward the content and receiving another trickplay command (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 4 for fast forward/skip forward and decreasing the amount of time and see include, but are not limited to, Chen: paragraphs 0016, 0057-0058; Ellis: figures 38-39, 49-51, 61, 96-99, 103, paragraphs 0030, 0036, 0290, 0292, 0300, 0440-0446-0458; E892: figures 6B, 22, 25B, 30, col. 12, lines 56-61).
Regarding claim 11, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the cache comprises at least one of a memory, a storage device, a storage system, or a storage subsystem (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 5 and Chen: figures 4-5, paragraphs 0081-0085; Ellis: figures 1, 2C; E892: figures 1-2d, 7-9; Chundi: figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 12, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the cache comprises a component of a computing device configured to perform the method (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 6, and Chen: figures 4-5, paragraphs 0081-0085; Ellis: figures 1, 2C; E892: figures 1-2d, 7-9; Chundi: figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 13, limitations that correspond to the limitations of claim 7 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 7. Particularly, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method comprising: receiving, from a user device, a request to output content on the user device; causing, based on the request, output of at least a first portion of the content, wherein a first time-to-live (TTL) is set for the first portion of the content, and wherein the first portion of the content is stored in a cache for a first period of time associated with the first TTL;
receiving, from the user device, an indication of a trickplay command to fast forward the output of the content on the user device to skip output of a second portion of the content; and
causing, based on the indication of the trickplay command to fast forward the output of the content on the user device, at least part of the second portion of the content to be stored in the cache for a second period of time (period of time with new extended/delay time before content is expired/deleted), wherein the second period of time is associated with a second TTL, and wherein the second portion of the content is different than the first portion of the content (first period of time is period of time before extended time and second period of time including new extended time - see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 7 and include, but are not limited to, Chen: figures 1, 10-11, paragraphs 0016, 0022, 0057-0058; Ellis: figures 38-39, 49-51, 61, 96-99, 103, paragraphs 0030, 0036, 0290, 0292, 0300, 0440-0446-0458; E892: figures 6B, 22, 25A-25B, 30, col. 12, lines 56-61; Chundi: figures 1a-3, 5-6, 8-9, paragraphs 0027-0028, 0074, 0082).
Regarding claim 14, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the type of the trickplay command comprises at least one of a fast forward command or a high speed fast forward command (different fast forward speeds, skip/jump – see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 8 and Chen: paragraphs 0016, 0058, 0119; Ellis: paragraphs 0036, 0300).
Regarding claim 15, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the at least the part of the second portion of the content to be stored in the cache comprises a portion of the content expected to be output in the event a trickplay command to rewind the content is received after the trickplay command to fast forward the content is received (see include, but are not limited to, Chen: figures 1, 8-12, paragraphs 0016, 0058, 0151; E892: figures 6A-6B, 22, 25A-25B; Ellis: figures 33, 39, 49-50, 61, 65, 94-95; Chundi: figures 1a-3, 5-6, 8-9, paragraphs 0027-0028, 0074, 0082).
Regarding claim 16, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising: receiving, after receiving the trickplay command to rewind the content, a trickplay command to play the content; and causing output of the second portion of the content (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 4, see include, but are not limited to, Chen: paragraphs 0007-0010; Ellis: 0319, 0351, 0356, 0440-0446-0458; E892: figures 6A-6B, 22, 30, col. 12, lines 56-63) .
Regarding claim 17, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the cache comprises at least one of a memory, a storage device, a storage system, or a storage subsystem (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claim 18, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the cache comprises a component of a computing device configured to perform the method (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 6).
Regarding claim 19, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the method further comprises causing a third portion of content to be evicted from the cache (causing another portion of content to be deleted/removed/discarded from cache/storage – see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 3, and include, but are not limited to, Chen: paragraphs 0061, 0166; Ellis: figures 51, 74-75, 95, paragraphs 0202, 0247, 0420, 0424; E892: col. 27, line 40- col. 28, line 19; Chundi: figures 1a-3, 5-6, 8-9, paragraphs 0027-0028, 0074, 0082).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11956482. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims 1-19 and Patent claims 1-20 are directed to the same invention with a different in scope and are therefore an obvious variant thereof or the invention defined in instant claims 1-19 is an obvious variation of the invention defined in the patent claims 1-20 because for limitations in the instant claims that are not recited in patent claims (e.g., to rewind, to fast forward) are known by prior art (see for example, prior arts discussed in the rejection above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art combine in patent claims with the well-known teachings such as rewinding, fast forwarding…as taught in the prior art cited above for the benefit of allowing user to quickly go to a specific point previously or subsequently in the program.
Allowance of claims 1-19 would result in an un-warranted timewise extension of the monopoly granted for the invention as defined in claims 1-20 of Patent No. 11956482.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mitsuji et al. (US 8677430) disclose content rental system comprising extending viewing window based on expired time is set for the content in response to playback command (see for example, figures 7, 10-13, 17).
Blumofe et al. (US 20120096106) discloses extending a content delivery network into a mobile or wireline network comprising time to live data associated with content stored in cache (paragraph 0037).
Kim et al. (US 20170279913) discloses unified data networking across heterogeneous networks including time to live (TTL) is set for content stored in cache (see paragraphs 0041).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN SON PHI HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7295. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-6:30 pm.
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, NASSER M. GOODARZI can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/AN SON P HUYNH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
January 6, 2026