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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-18, drawn to a system for surfacing content to a user of a connected fitness platform, classified in A63B 2024/0081.
II. Claims 19-20, drawn to a medium for identifying music artists and recommending exercises, classified in A63B 71/0622.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to similar recommendation generating systems/mediums. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed involve separate calculations in order to generate their recommendations. Invention I uses the engagement of an instructor while Invention II uses musical artists. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Mike Smith on 03/04/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute Invention I, claims 1-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “an input module”, “a similarity module”, and “a surfacing module” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 lacks disclosure for the structure for the following elements as explained in the claim interpretation section: “an input module”, “a similarity module”, and “a surfacing module”. This raises doubts as to if Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims 2-9 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “an input module”, “a similarity module”, and “a surfacing module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification lacks sufficient disclosure for the structure which is used to perform the functions of these modules. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-9 are drawn to a system and claims 10-18 are drawn to a method, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-18 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a system for surfacing content to a user of a connected fitness platform, the system comprising:
a) an input module that 1) receives historical activity information for the user of the connected fitness platform,
wherein the historical activity information includes exercise classes previously performed by the user, and
wherein each exercise class is associated with a specific instructor of the connected fitness platform;
b) a similarity module that 2) applies matrix factorization to the historical activity information to identify:
one or more highest engagement instructors that are most engaged with by the user of the connected fitness platform; and
one or more similar instructors that are related to the one or more highest engagement instructors based on the applied matrix factorization; and
c) a surfacing module that 3) displays a user-selectable set of exercise classes via d) a user interface (if a computer) of the connected fitness platform,
wherein the set of exercise classes includes:
at least one exercise class associated with the one or more highest engagement instructors, and
at least one exercise class associated with the one or more similar instructors that are related to the one or more highest engagement instructors based on the applied matrix factorization.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) receives historical activity information for the user of the connected fitness platform, wherein the historical activity information includes exercise classes previously performed by the user, and wherein each exercise class is associated with a specific instructor of the connected fitness platform, 2) applies matrix factorization to the historical activity information to identify: one or more highest engagement instructors that are most engaged with by the user of the connected fitness platform and one or more similar instructors that are related to the one or more highest engagement instructors based on the applied matrix factorization, and 3) displays a user-selectable set of exercise classes via a user interface (when a pen and paper) of the connected fitness platform, wherein the set of exercise classes includes: at least one exercise class associated with the one or more highest engagement instructors, and at least one exercise class associated with the one or more similar instructors that are related to the one or more highest engagement instructors based on the applied matrix factorization. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how one could determine relevant classes for an individual.
Claim 1 also recites, in part, performing the step of 2) applies matrix factorization to the historical activity information to identify: one or more highest engagement instructors that are most engaged with by the user of the connected fitness platform and one or more similar instructors that are related to the one or more highest engagement instructors based on the applied matrix factorization. This step also correspond to Mathematical Concepts.
Going forward the above abstract concepts will be considered as a singular abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites a method, comprising:
4) accessing exercise class activity information for a user of a connected fitness platform,
wherein each exercise class is associated with an instructor;
5) applying matrix factorization to the exercise class activity information to identify a first set of instructors and a second set of instructors similar to the first set of instructors; and
6) surfacing a user-selectable set of exercise classes via a user interface of the connected fitness platform,
wherein the set of exercise classes includes exercise classes associated with the first set of instructors and the second set of instructors.
Claim 10 recites, in part, performing the steps of 4) accessing exercise class activity information for a user of a connected fitness platform, wherein each exercise class is associated with an instructor, 5) applying matrix factorization to the exercise class activity information to identify a first set of instructors and a second set of instructors similar to the first set of instructors, and 6) surfacing a user-selectable set of exercise classes via a user interface of the connected fitness platform, wherein the set of exercise classes includes exercise classes associated with the first set of instructors and the second set of instructors. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how one could determine relevant classes for an individual.
Claim 10 also recites, in part, performing the step of 5) applying matrix factorization to the exercise class activity information to identify a first set of instructors and a second set of instructors similar to the first set of instructors. These steps correspond to Mathematical Concepts.
Going forward the above abstract concepts will be considered as a singular abstract idea.
Depending claims 2-9 and 11-18 include all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 2 and 12 add a “determining rating vectors” step and “generating” step which are part of mathematical concepts and a “determining” step which is part of certain methods of organizing human activity (CMOHA); claim 4 adds a “receiving” step which is part of CMOHA; claim 5 adds a “displaying” step which is part of CMOHA; claim 6 adds a “displaying” step which is part of CMOHA; and claim 11 recites a “determining” step which uses math. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 3, 7-9, and 13-18 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 2-9 and 11-18 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 10 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) an input module, b) a similarity module, c) a surfacing module, and d) a user interface (which might be from various objects including a treadmill from claims 7 and 16, an exercise bicycle from claims 8 and 17, and a mobile device from claims 9 and 18) to perform the claimed steps.
The a) input module, b) similarity module, c) surfacing module, and d) user interface (when a mobile device from claims 9 and 18) in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, for a lack of description of anything but what may be considered as generic computing components for these modules and paragraph [32] of the specification where the mobile device is generic, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The d) user interface (when a treadmill from claims 7 and 16 and an exercise bicycle from claims 8 and 17) in these steps generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as exercise equipment, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a) an input module, b) a similarity module, c) a surfacing module, and d) a user interface (which might be from various objects including a treadmill from claims 7 and 16, an exercise bicycle from claims 8 and 17, and a mobile device from claims 9 and 18) to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than a general linking to a particular technological field and mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity or certain mathematical steps. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The current invention displays similar instructors utilizing a) an input module, b) a similarity module, c) a surfacing module, and d) a user interface (when a mobile device from claims 9 and 18), thus these computing devices are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, the d) user interface (when a treadmill from claims 7 and 16 and an exercise bicycle from claims 8 and 17) generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The following represent an example that courts have identified as generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h)): Limiting the abstract idea data to a user interface of a treadmill or an exercise bike, because limiting application of the abstract idea to exercise equipment is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, e.g. see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components or a general linking to a particular technological field cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-18 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
Claims 1, 9-10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Matrix Factorization Techniques for Recommender Systems” to Koren, hereafter Koren, in view of U.S. 2022/0180997 to Sullivan et al.
As per claim 1, Koren teaches a system for surfacing content to a user of a connected platform, the system comprising:
--an input module that receives historical activity information for the user of the connected platform, (see: page 44, paragraph 3 where there is input of historical information for a user of the platform)
--wherein the historical activity information includes options previously performed by the user, (see: page 44, paragraph 3 where there is input of historical information for a user of the platform. The browsing history is taken into account, thus historical activity information of the user including the content options previously selected/viewed by the user) and
--wherein each option is associated with a specific entity of the connected platform; (see: page 44, paragraph 3 and FIG. 3 where each content option is associated with a specific entity such as leads, humor, etc. of the Netflix platform)
--a similarity module that applies matrix factorization to the historical activity information (see: page 44, paragraph 3 where there is matrix factorization based on this historical information) to identify:
--one or more highest engagement entities that are most engaged with by the user of the connected platform; (see: “Matrix Factorization Methods” on pages 43-44 where there is identification of content for users based on various factors. Also see: “Inputs with Varying Confidence Levels” on pages 46-47 where there is a confidence level associated based on time spent (engagement) with consuming the content. Also see: FIGS. 2 and 3 where there are entities related to leads, humor, etc.) and
--one or more similar entities that are related to the one or more highest engagement entities based on the applied matrix factorization; (see: FIG. 3 on page 47 and “Inputs with Varying Confidence Levels” on pages 46-47 where there is a confidence level associated based on time spent with consuming the content. A matrix factorization model is being used here which factors in this confidence level (engagement) and displays other related/relevant content. Also see: FIGS. 2 and 3. The similar entities and highest entities could be that of a most watched female lead (highest entity) and a similar female lead (similar entity)) and
--a surfacing module that displays a user-selectable set of options via a user interface of the connected platform, (see: page 42 paragraph 2 where there is recommendation of content using the various data. Also see: page 44, paragraph 3 where the data is historical data, and FIG. 3 where there is selected content being provided. The matrix factorization model here is being used with Netflix to optimize which content is being provided/surfaced to the user)
--wherein the set of options includes:
--at least one option associated with the one or more highest engagement entities, (see: “Matrix Factorization Methods” on pages 43-44 where there is identification of content for users based on various factors. Also see: “Inputs with Varying Confidence Levels” on pages 46-47 where there is a confidence level associated based on time spent (engagement) with consuming the content. Also see: FIGS. 2 and 3. The similar entities and highest entities could be that of a most watched female lead (highest entity) and a similar female lead (similar entity)). The content option here is associated with the something such as a most watched female lead (highest engagement entity)) and
--at least one option associated with the one or more similar entities that are related to the one or more highest engagement entities based on the applied matrix factorization (see: FIG. 3 on page 47 and “Inputs with Varying Confidence Levels” on pages 46-47 where there is a confidence level associated based on time spent with consuming the content. A matrix factorization model is being used here which factors in this confidence level (engagement) and displays other related/relevant content. Also see: FIGS. 2 and 3. The similar entities and highest entities could be that of a most watched female lead (highest entity) and a similar female lead (similar entity). The content option here is associated with similar female lead (similar entity) which is related to a most watched female lead (highest engagement entity)).
Koren may not further, specifically teach:
1) --connected fitness platform as a connected platform;
2) --instructors as an entities; and
3) --exercise classes as options.
Sullivan et al. teaches:
1) --connected fitness platform as a connected platform; (see: paragraph [0079] where there is a fitness platform)
2) --instructors as an entities; (see: paragraph [0074] where there are instructors) and
3) --exercise classes as options (see: paragraph [0097] where there are exercises).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a 1) connected fitness platform as taught by Sullivan et al. for the connected platform as disclosed by Koren since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Koren already teaches of a connect platform thus it would be obvious to use another type of platform as predictable results would be obtained of using a connected platform. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute 2) instructors as taught by Sullivan et al. for entities as disclosed by Koren since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Koren already teaches of entities thus one could replace that entity with another entity in the form of instructors to obtain predictable results of using an entity. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute 3) exercise classes as taught by Sullivan et al. for options as disclosed by Koren since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Koren already teaches of options thus one could replace that entity with other options in the form of exercises to obtain predictable results of using options. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
As per claim 9, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Sullivan et al. further teaches wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of a mobile device via which the user consumes exercise content streamed by the connected fitness platform (see: paragraph [0079] where content is live streamed. Also see: paragraph [0120] where the fitness class app is on the mobile device).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 10, Koren teaches a method, comprising:
--accessing option activity information for a user of a connected platform, (see: page 44, paragraph 3 where there is input of historical information for a user of the platform)
--wherein each option is associated with an entity; (see: page 44, paragraph 3 and FIG. 3 where each content option is associated with a specific entity such as leads, humor, etc. of the Netflix platform)
--applying matrix factorization to the option activity information to identify a first set of entities and a second set of entities similar to the first set of entities; (see: page 44, paragraph 3 where there is matrix factorization based on this historical information. Also see: FIG. 3 on page 47 and “Inputs with Varying Confidence Levels” on pages 46-47 where there is a confidence level associated based on time spent with consuming the content. A matrix factorization model is being used here which factors in this confidence level (engagement) and displays other related/relevant content. Also see: FIGS. 2 and 3. The similar entities and highest entities could be that of a most watched female lead (highest entity) and a similar female lead (similar entity)) and
--surfacing a user-selectable set of options via a user interface of the connected platform, (see: page 42 paragraph 2 where there is recommendation of content using the various data. Also see: page 44, paragraph 3 where the data is historical data, and FIG. 3 where there is selected content being provided. The matrix factorization model here is being used with Netflix to optimize which content is being provided/surfaced to the user)
--wherein the set of options includes options associated with the first set of entities and the second set of entities (see: FIG. 3 on page 47 and “Inputs with Varying Confidence Levels” on pages 46-47 where there is a confidence level associated based on time spent with consuming the content. A matrix factorization model is being used here which factors in this confidence level (engagement) and displays other related/relevant content. Also see: FIGS. 2 and 3. The similar entities and highest entities could be that of a most watched female lead (highest entity) and a similar female lead (similar entity). The content option here is associated with similar female lead (similar entity) which is related to a most watched female lead (highest engagement entity)).
Koren may not further, specifically teach:
1) --connected fitness platform as a connected platform;
2) --instructors as an entities; and
3) --exercise classes as options.
Sullivan et al. teaches:
1) --connected fitness platform as a connected platform; (see: paragraph [0079] where there is a fitness platform)
2) --instructors as an entities; (see: paragraph [0074] where there are instructors) and
3) --exercise classes as options (see: paragraph [0097] where there are exercises).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a 1) connected fitness platform as taught by Sullivan et al. for the connected platform as disclosed by Koren since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Koren already teaches of a connect platform thus it would be obvious to use another type of platform as predictable results would be obtained of using a connected platform. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute 2) instructors as taught by Sullivan et al. for entities as disclosed by Koren since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Koren already teaches of entities thus one could replace that entity with another entity in the form of instructors to obtain predictable results of using an entity. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute 3) exercise classes as taught by Sullivan et al. for options as disclosed by Koren since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Koren already teaches of options thus one could replace that entity with other options in the form of exercises to obtain predictable results of using options. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
As per claim 18, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. Sullivan et al. further teaches wherein the user interface of the connected fitness platform is a display screen that is part of a mobile device via which the user consumes exercise content streamed by the connected fitness platform (see: paragraph [0079] where content is live streamed. Also see: paragraph [0120] where the fitness class app is on the mobile device).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 10, and incorporated herein.
Claims 2-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Matrix Factorization Techniques for Recommender Systems” to Koren, hereafter Koren, in view of U.S. 2022/0180997 to Sullivan et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10, and further in view of U.S. 2020/0104148 to R et al.
As per claim 2, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Koren further teaches wherein the applied matrix factorization includes:
--determining rating vectors for entities of the connected platform; (see: FIG. 3 and “Netflix Prize Competition” on page 47 where there is a determination of rating vectors of factor vectors for factors (entities) such as comedies, etc.)
--generating a rating matrix that maps the instructors of the connected platform with their determined rating vectors; (see: FIG. 3 on page 47 where there is generation of a rating matrix) and
--determining the one or more similar entities are related to the one or more highest engagement entities (see: FIG. 3 and “Netflix Prize Competition” on page 47 where there is determination of similar factors entities to the ones already liked).
Sullivan et al. further teaches:
--connected fitness platform as a connected platform; (see: paragraph [0079] where there is a fitness platform) and
--instructors as an entities (see: paragraph [0074] where there are instructors).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination may not further, specifically teach:
--determining entities are related to entities using cosine similarity.
R et al. teaches:
--determining entities are related to entities using cosine similarity (see: paragraphs [0059] and [0060] where cosine similarity is used to determine similarity between objects).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to determine entities are related to entities using cosine similarity as taught by R et al. in the system as taught by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of rating things (see: paragraph [0059] of R et al.).
As per claim 3, Koren, Sullivan et al., and R et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 2, see discussion of claim 2. Koren further teaches wherein determining the rating vectors for the entities of the connected platform includes determining the rating vectors for all entities associated with options of a common discipline (see: FIG. 3 and page 47 where the rating vectors for the factors/entities includes rating vectors for all factors associated with content of a common genre).
Sullivan et al. further teaches:
--connected fitness platform as a connected platform; (see: paragraph [0079] where there is a fitness platform)
--instructors as an entities; (see: paragraph [0074] where there are instructors)
--exercise discipline as a discipline; (see: paragraph [0003] where there are commonly involved exercise regimens) and
--exercise classes as options (see: paragraph [0097] where there are exercises).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 11, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. Koren further teaches wherein applying matrix factorization to the option activity information includes determining the first set of entities is similar to the second set of entities (see: page 44, paragraph 3 where there is matrix factorization based on this historical information. Also see: FIG. 3 on page 47 and “Inputs with Varying Confidence Levels” on pages 46-47 where there is a confidence level associated based on time spent with consuming the content. A matrix factorization model is being used here which factors in this confidence level (engagement) and displays other related/relevant content. Also see: FIGS. 2 and 3. The similar entities and highest entities could be that of a most watched female lead (highest entity) and a similar female lead (similar entity)).
Sullivan et al. further teaches:
--instructors as an entities; (see: paragraph [0074] where there are instructors) and
--exercise classes as options (see: paragraph [0097] where there are exercises).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination may not further, specifically teach:
--determining entities are related to entities using cosine similarity.
R et al. teaches:
--determining entities are related to entities using cosine similarity (see: paragraphs [0059] and [0060] where cosine similarity is used to determine similarity between objects).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to determine entities are related to entities using cosine similarity as taught by R et al. in the system as taught by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of rating things (see: paragraph [0059] of R et al.).
As per claim 12, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. Koren further teaches wherein applying matrix factorization to the exercise class information includes:
--determining rating vectors for entities of the connected platform; (see: FIG. 3 and “Netflix Prize Competition” on page 47 where there is a determination of rating vectors of factor vectors for factors (entities) such as comedies, etc.)
--generating a rating matrix that maps the entities of the connected platform with their determined rating vectors; (see: FIG. 3 on page 47 where there is generation of a rating matrix) and
--determining the first set of entities is similar to the second set of entities (see: FIG. 3 and “Netflix Prize Competition” on page 47 where there is determination of similar factors entities to the ones already liked).
Sullivan et al. further teaches:
--connected fitness platform as a connected platform; (see: paragraph [0079] where there is a fitness platform) and
--instructors as an entities (see: paragraph [0074] where there are instructors).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 10, and incorporated herein.
Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination may not further, specifically teach:
--determining entities are related to entities using cosine similarity.
R et al. teaches:
--determining entities are related to entities using cosine similarity (see: paragraphs [0059] and [0060] where cosine similarity is used to determine similarity between objects).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to determine entities are related to entities using cosine similarity as taught by R et al. in the method as taught by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of rating things (see: paragraph [0059] of R et al.).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Matrix Factorization Techniques for Recommender Systems” to Koren, hereafter Koren, in view of U.S. 2022/0180997 to Sullivan et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10, and further in view of U.S. 2008/0051919 to Sakai et al.
As per claim 4, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Koren further teaches wherein the input module receives information for options previously performed by the user that identifies a duration of each of the options (see: “Inputs with Varying Confidence Levels” on page 46 where there is a time a user has watched a certain show/content/option. This information is being received).
Sullivan et al. further teaches:
--exercise classes as options (see: paragraph [0097] where there are exercises).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination may not further, specifically teach:
--receives information for options previously performed by the user that identifies music selections for each of the options.
Sakai et al. teaches:
--receives information for options previously performed by the user that identifies music selections for each of the options (see: paragraph [0011] where there is historical information about music playback which identifies songs for each exercise).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to receive information for options previously performed by the user that identifies music selections for each of the options as taught by Sakai et al. in the system as taught by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of maintaining or enhancing health (see: paragraph [0008] of Sakai et al.).
As per claim 13, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. Koren further teaches wherein the option activity information includes a duration information for the options (see: “Inputs with Varying Confidence Levels” on page 46 where there is a time a user has watched a certain show/content/option. This information is being received).
Sullivan et al. further teaches:
--exercise classes as options (see: paragraph [0097] where there are exercises).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 10, and incorporated herein.
Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination may not further, specifically teach:
--wherein the option activity information includes music selections for the options.
Sakai et al. teaches:
--wherein the option activity information includes music selections for the options (see: paragraph [0011] where there is historical information about music playback which identifies songs for each exercise).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the option activity information includes music selections for the options as taught by Sakai et al. in the method as taught by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of maintaining or enhancing health (see: paragraph [0008] of Sakai et al.).
Claims 5, 7-8, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Matrix Factorization Techniques for Recommender Systems” to Koren, hereafter Koren, in view of U.S. 2022/0180997 to Sullivan et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10, and further in view of W.O. 2020/123756 to Evancha et al.
As per claim 5, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the surfacing module displays the user-selectable set of exercise classes via a homescreen interface via which the user accesses the connected fitness platform.
Evancha et al. teaches:
--wherein the surfacing module displays the user-selectable set of exercise classes via a homescreen interface via which the user accesses the connected fitness platform (see: paragraphs [0038] where there is a home screen which a user accesses to access exercise).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the surfacing module displays the user-selectable set of exercise classes via a homescreen interface via which the user accesses the connected fitness platform as taught by Evancha et al. in the system as taught by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of providing direct links for information (see: paragraph [0038] of Evancha et al.).
As per claim 7, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of a treadmill via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform.
Evancha et al. teaches:
--wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of a treadmill via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform (see: paragraph [0022] where there is a treadmill with a display).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of a treadmill via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform as taught by Evancha et al. for the user interface as disclosed by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches of using an interface thus replacing that interface with another interface would obtain predictable results. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
As per claim 8, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of an exercise bicycle via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform.
Evancha et al. teaches:
--wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of an exercise bicycle via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform (see: paragraph [0022] where there is a bicycle with a display).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of a treadmill via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform as taught by Evancha et al. for the user interface as disclosed by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches of using an interface thus replacing that interface with another interface would obtain predictable results. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
As per claim 14, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the user interface of the connected fitness platform is a homescreen interface via which the user accesses the connected fitness platform.
Evancha et al. teaches:
--wherein the surfacing module displays the user-selectable set of exercise classes via a homescreen interface via which the user accesses the connected fitness platform (see: paragraphs [0038] where there is a home screen which a user accesses to access exercise).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the surfacing module displays the user-selectable set of exercise classes via a homescreen interface via which the user accesses the connected fitness platform as taught by Evancha et al. in the method as taught by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of providing direct links for information (see: paragraph [0038] of Evancha et al.).
As per claim 16, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the user interface of the connected fitness platform is a display screen that is part of a treadmill via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform.
Evancha et al. teaches:
--wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of a treadmill via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform (see: paragraph [0022] where there is a treadmill with a display).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of a treadmill via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform as taught by Evancha et al. for the user interface as disclosed by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches of using an interface thus replacing that interface with another interface would obtain predictable results. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
As per claim 17, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the user interface of the connected fitness platform is a display screen that is part of an exercise bicycle via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform.
Evancha et al. teaches:
--wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of an exercise bicycle via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform (see: paragraph [0022] where there is a bicycle with a display).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute wherein the user interface is a display screen that is part of a treadmill via which the user performs exercise activities during exercise classes streamed by the connected fitness platform as taught by Evancha et al. for the user interface as disclosed by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches of using an interface thus replacing that interface with another interface would obtain predictable results. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Matrix Factorization Techniques for Recommender Systems” to Koren, hereafter Koren, in view of U.S. 2022/0180997 to Sullivan et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10, and further in view of U.S. 2014/0272859 to Mueller et al.
As per claim 6, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach further teaches wherein the surfacing module displays the user-selectable set of exercise classes via one or more rows of recommended class content that include the user-selectable set of exercise classes.
Mueller et al. teaches:
--wherein the surfacing module displays the user-selectable set of exercise classes via one or more rows of recommended class content that include the user-selectable set of exercise classes (see: claim 6 where there is such a row of user-selectable content of exercise classes).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the surfacing module displays the user-selectable set of exercise classes via one or more rows of recommended class content that include the user-selectable set of exercise classes as taught by Mueller et al. in the system as taught by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of displaying exercises (see: paragraph [0006] of Mueller et al.).
As per claim 15, Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the user interface of the connected fitness platform includes one or more rows of recommended class content that include the user-selectable set of exercise classes.
Mueller et al. teaches:
--wherein the user interface of the connected fitness platform includes one or more rows of recommended class content that include the user-selectable set of exercise classes (see: claim 6 where there is such a row of user-selectable content of exercise classes).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the user interface of the connected fitness platform includes one or more rows of recommended class content that include the user-selectable set of exercise classes as taught by Mueller et al. in the method as taught by Koren and Sullivan et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of displaying exercises (see: paragraph [0006] of Mueller et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684