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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment dated 4/21/2026.
2. Claims 1, 2, 4-18 and 20 are pending in the case.
3. Claims 3 and 19 are cancelled.
4. Claims 1, 17 and 20 are independent claims.
Applicant’s Response
5. In Applicant’s response dated 4/21/2026, applicant has amended the following:
a) Claims 1, 2, 17, 18 and 20
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-14, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (hereinafter “Lin”), WO 2020007147 A1 published 2020-01-09 (see attached English translated version 51 pages), in view of Peterson et al. (hereinafter “Peterson”), U.S. Published Application No. 20170357437 A1.
Claim 1:
Lin teaches A screen splitting method, comprising:
displaying a plurality of split screen windows on a display screen of an electronic apparatus, wherein the plurality of split screen windows comprises a first split screen window and a second split screen window; (e.g., displaying application A and B in first and second split screen window respectively, as shown Figures 2 and 3, see page 6 out of 51; For example, referring to FIG. 2, when the electronic device processes the split screen display state, two split screen display windows, that is, an upper split screen display window and a lower split screen display window may be displayed. In one embodiment, left and right split screen display windows can also be displayed. Referring to FIG. 2, the upper split-screen display window performs split-screen display of application A, and the lower split-screen display window performs split-screen display of application B.)
and switching a first application interface displayed in the first split screen window to a first target interface in response to a first operation acting on the first split screen window, and maintaining display of a second application interface in the second split screen window, wherein the first target interface is different from an interface in an application program corresponding to the first application interface. (e.g., switching application B to application C while maintaining application A as sown in Figure 3; see page 8 out of 51; For example, referring to FIG. 3, when the user slides to the right in the lower split screen display window, the lower split screen display window may be triggered to display the task windows of the background applications, such as the task windows of the background applications C, D, E, and F.)
wherein switching the first application interface displayed in the first split screen window to the first target interface in response to the first operation acting on the first split screen window comprises:
switching the first application interface displayed in the first split screen window to a split-screen desktop interface in response to the first operation acting on the first split screen window, wherein the split-screen desktop interface comprises icons of a plurality of application programs in the electronic apparatus; (e.g., when the user slides to the right in the lower split screen display window, the lower split screen display window can be triggered to display the task windows (i.e., iconic thumbnail windows) of the background applications C, D, E and F as shown in Figure 3, page 7 out of 51; Among them, the background application is an application program running in the background of the system, referred to as the background application for short. The task window of the background application may be a task window of the background application in the system background task management, and the task window displays a page thumbnail of the background application. For example, referring to FIG. 3, when the user slides to the right in the lower split screen display window, the lower split screen display window may be triggered to display the task windows of the background applications, such as the task windows of the background applications C, D, E, and F. )
Lin fails to expressly teach a sliding operation of taking a navigation bar displayed in the first split screen window as a starting point.
However, Peterson teaches wherein the first operation corresponding to the split-screen desktop interface comprises: a sliding operation of taking a navigation bar displayed in the first split screen window as a starting point and sliding by a first preset distance or for a first preset duration toward a direction away from the navigation bar on the first split screen window. (e.g., dragging tab bar displayed in the first split screen as a starting point and sliding to a predetermined region Examiner notes that the tab bar reads on the recited navigation bar because both elements are selectable interface objects displayed in the first split screen window as shown in Figures 5A-5D. Par. 180; FIGS. 5A-5D illustrate a sequence in which the user interface transitions from full screen mode to split screen mode in response to dragging a tab to a predefined region of the user interface.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sliding operations as taught by Lin to include the sliding operations as taught Peterson, to provide the benefit of an efficient and less tedious method of transitioning between display modes in effort to efficiently perform manipulations on interface objects. (see Peterson; par. 5)
Claim 2 depends on claim 1:
Lin teaches wherein switching the first application interface displayed in the first split screen window to the first target interface in response to the first operation acting on the first split screen window comprises: switching the first application interface displayed in the first split screen window to a first task presentation interface in response to the first operation acting on the first split screen window, wherein the first task presentation interface is a presentation interface comprising a thumbnail window of at least one application program running in background of the electronic apparatus;
or switching the first application interface displayed in the first split screen window to a third application interface in response to the first operation acting on the first split screen window, wherein the third application interface is an interface of the application program running in the background of the electronic apparatus. (e.g., when the user slides to the right in the lower split screen display window, the lower split screen display window can be triggered to display the task windows (i.e., thumbnail windows) of the background applications C, D, E and F as shown in Figure 3, page 7 out of 51; Among them, the background application is an application program running in the background of the system, referred to as the background application for short. The task window of the background application may be a task window of the background application in the system background task management, and the task window displays a page thumbnail of the background application. For example, referring to FIG. 3, when the user slides to the right in the lower split screen display window, the lower split screen display window may be triggered to display the task windows of the background applications, such as the task windows of the background applications C, D, E, and F. )
Claim 4 depends on claim 2:
Lin fails to expressly teach a sliding operation of taking a navigation bar displayed in the first split screen window as a starting point.
However, Peterson teaches wherein the first operation corresponding to the first task presentation interface comprises: a sliding operation of taking a navigation bar displayed in the first split screen window as a starting point, sliding by a second preset distance or for a second preset duration toward a direction away from the navigation bar on the first split screen window and staying at a position after sliding for a preset first stay duration. (e.g., dragging tab bar displayed in the first split screen as a starting point and sliding to a predetermined region Examiner notes that the tab bar reads on the recited navigation bar because both elements are selectable interface objects displayed in the first split screen window as shown in Figures 5A-5D. Par. 180; FIGS. 5A-5D illustrate a sequence in which the user interface transitions from full screen mode to split screen mode in response to dragging a tab to a predefined region of the user interface.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sliding operations as taught by Lin to include the sliding operations as taught Peterson, to provide the benefit of an efficient and less tedious method of transitioning between display modes in effort to efficiently perform manipulations on interface objects. (see Peterson; par. 5)
Claim 5 depends on claim 2:
Lin fails to expressly teach a sliding operation of taking a navigation bar displayed in the first split screen window as a starting point.
However, Peterson teaches wherein the first operation corresponding to the third application interface comprises: a sliding operation of taking a navigation bar displayed in the first split screen window as a starting point and sliding by a third preset distance or for a third preset duration along an extension direction of the navigation bar on the first split screen window. (e.g., dragging tab bar displayed in the first split screen as a starting point and sliding to a predetermined region Examiner notes that the tab bar reads on the recited navigation bar because both elements are selectable interface objects displayed in the first split screen window as shown in Figures 5A-5D. Par. 180; FIGS. 5A-5D illustrate a sequence in which the user interface transitions from full screen mode to split screen mode in response to dragging a tab to a predefined region of the user interface.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sliding operations as taught by Lin to include the sliding operations as taught Peterson, to provide the benefit of an efficient and less tedious method of transitioning between display modes in effort to efficiently perform manipulations on interface objects. (see Peterson; par. 5)
Claim 6 depends on claim 2:
Lin fails to expressly teach further comprising: adjusting a full-screen desktop interface.
However, Peterson teaches further comprising: adjusting a full-screen desktop interface displayed on the display screen to obtain the split-screen desktop interface. (e.g., transitioning from full screen interface to split screen interface based on gesture operations as shown in Figure 5FF par. 21; FIGS. 5A-5KK illustrate example user interfaces for switching between full screen mode and split screen mode in accordance with some embodiments. Par. 24; FIGS. 8A-8D illustrate a flow diagram of a method of switching between full screen mode and split screen mode in accordance with some embodiments. Par. 180; FIGS. 5A-5D illustrate a sequence in which the user interface transitions from full screen mode to split screen mode in response to dragging a tab to a predefined region of the user interface. Par. 186; For example, a transition between full screen and split screen modes is triggered by dropping a tab in the drop zone 521. Par. 190; For example, the user of the portable multifunction device 100 is able to resize the first window 522 and the second window 524 by dragging the divider 528.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify obtained split-screen desktop interface as taught by Lin to be displayed from a full screen interface based on gesture operations as taught Peterson, to provide the benefit of an efficient and less tedious method of transitioning between display modes in effort to efficiently perform manipulations on interface objects. (see Peterson; par. 5)
Claim 7 depends on claim 6:
Lin/Peterson teaches wherein adjusting the full-screen desktop interface displayed on the display screen to obtain the split-screen desktop interface comprises: adjusting a size of the full-screen desktop interface based on a size of the first split screen window to obtain the split-screen desktop interface, in case that the first split screen window and the second split screen window are distributed on the display screen in a target display ratio; or adjusting the first split screen window and the second split screen window based on the target display ratio, and adjusting the full-screen desktop interface based on the size of the adjusted first split screen window to obtain the split-screen desktop interface, in case that the first split screen window and the second split screen window are not distributed on the display screen in the target display ratio. (e.g., dragging divider 528 to adjust size of each window of the split screen ; Peterson; Par. 190; For example, the user of the portable multifunction device 100 is able to resize the first window 522 and the second window 524 by dragging the divider 528.)
Claim 8 depends on claim 1:
Lin teaches wherein the first target interface comprises a split-screen desktop interface or a first task presentation interface. (see Figure 3)
Lin fails to expressly teach displaying the first target interface in full screen.
However, Peterson teaches further comprising: exiting split-screen display and displaying the first target interface in full screen on the display screen in response to a second operation acting on the second split screen window, (e.g., exiting split screen display in response to dragging divider 528 to edge (i.e., acting on the second split screen) as shown in Figure 5FF Par. 224; FIG. 5FF also illustrates a dragging gesture with a contact 5114, where the divider 528 is dragged to an edge of the user interface (e.g., right edge) according to a movement vector 5116 (e.g., left-to-right dragging gesture). FIG. 5GG illustrates a merged window 5118 (e.g., a full screen window) in response to the dragging gesture in FIG. 5FF.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify obtained split-screen mode as taught by Lin to transition into full screen mode based on gesture operations as taught Peterson, to provide the benefit of an efficient and less tedious method of transitioning between display modes in effort to efficiently perform manipulations on interface objects. (see Peterson; par. 5)
Claim 9 depends on claim 1:
Lin teaches further comprising: switching the first target interface displayed in the first-split window to an application interface corresponding to an icon in the first target interface, in response to a third operation acting on the icon; or switching the first target interface displayed in the first-split window to an application interface corresponding to a thumbnail window in the first target interface, in response to a third operation acting on the thumbnail window. (e.g., when the user slides to the right in the lower split screen display window, the lower split screen display window can be triggered to display the task windows (i.e., thumbnail windows) of the background applications C, D, E and F for selection as shown in Figure 3, page 10 out of 51; After sorting, you can get the sorted task window set {application C task window, application E task window, application D task window, application F task window}; at this time, the sorted task window set can be displayed in the target split screen display window For users to choose.104. Switch the split screen application displayed on the target split screen display window to the corresponding background application based on the detected task window selection operation of the target split screen display window by the user.For example, the split-screen application displayed in the target split-screen display window can be switched to a corresponding background application, and the background application is displayed in the target split-screen display window.The task window selection operation may include a click operation, a press operation, a slide operation, and the like. Specifically, it can be set according to actual needs. For example, the user can select a task window by clicking.)
Claim 10 depends on claim 1:
Lin fails to expressly teach displaying a second target interface in full screen on the display screen, in response to a fourth operation acting on a window partition bar between the first split screen window and the second split screen window.
However, Peterson teaches further comprising: displaying a second target interface in full screen on the display screen, in response to a fourth operation acting on a window partition bar between the first split screen window and the second split screen window. (e.g., exiting split screen display in response to dragging divider 528 to edge resulting in full screen of either window on each side of the divider Par. 224; FIG. 5FF also illustrates a dragging gesture with a contact 5114, where the divider 528 is dragged to an edge of the user interface (e.g., right edge) according to a movement vector 5116 (e.g., left-to-right dragging gesture). FIG. 5GG illustrates a merged window 5118 (e.g., a full screen window) in response to the dragging gesture in FIG. 5FF.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify obtained split-screen mode as taught by Lin to transition into full screen mode based on gesture operations as taught Peterson, to provide the benefit of an efficient and less tedious method of transitioning between display modes in effort to efficiently perform manipulations on interface objects. (see Peterson; par. 5)
Claim 11 depends on claim 10:
Lin/Peterson teaches wherein displaying the second target interface in full screen on the display screen, in response to the fourth operation acting on the window partition bar between the first split screen window and the second split screen window comprises: exiting split-screen display and displaying a full-screen desktop interface on the display screen, in response to the fourth operation acting on the window partition bar; (e.g., exiting split screen display in response to dragging divider 528 to edge resulting in full screen of either window on each side of the divider Peterson; Par. 224; FIG. 5FF also illustrates a dragging gesture with a contact 5114, where the divider 528 is dragged to an edge of the user interface (e.g., right edge) according to a movement vector 5116 (e.g., left-to-right dragging gesture). FIG. 5GG illustrates a merged window 5118 (e.g., a full screen window) in response to the dragging gesture in FIG. 5FF.)
or exiting split-screen display and displaying a second task presentation interface in full screen on the display screen, in response to the fourth operation acting on the window partition bar; (e.g., exiting split screen display in response to dragging divider 528 to edge resulting in full screen of either window on each side of the divider Peterson; Par. 224; FIG. 5FF also illustrates a dragging gesture with a contact 5114, where the divider 528 is dragged to an edge of the user interface (e.g., right edge) according to a movement vector 5116 (e.g., left-to-right dragging gesture). FIG. 5GG illustrates a merged window 5118 (e.g., a full screen window) in response to the dragging gesture in FIG. 5FF.)
or exiting split-screen display and displaying a fourth application interface in full screen on the display screen, in response to the fourth operation acting on the window partition bar, wherein the fourth application interface is an interface of an application program running in background of the electronic apparatus.
Claim 12 depends on claim 11:
Lin/Peterson teaches wherein the fourth operation corresponding to the full-screen desktop interface comprises: a sliding operation of taking the window partition bar as a starting point and sliding for a fourth preset duration or by a fourth preset distance along an extension direction of the window partition bar. (e.g., exiting split screen display in response to dragging divider 528 to edge resulting in full screen of either window on each side of the divider Peterson; Par. 224; FIG. 5FF also illustrates a dragging gesture with a contact 5114, where the divider 528 is dragged to an edge of the user interface (e.g., right edge) according to a movement vector 5116 (e.g., left-to-right dragging gesture). FIG. 5GG illustrates a merged window 5118 (e.g., a full screen window) in response to the dragging gesture in FIG. 5FF.)
Claim 13 depends on claim 11:
Lin/Peterson teaches wherein the fourth operation corresponding to the second task presentation interface comprises: a sliding operation of taking the window partition bar as a starting point, sliding by a fifth preset distance or for a fifth preset duration along an extension direction of the window partition bar and staying at a position after sliding for a second stay duration. (e.g., exiting split screen display in response to dragging divider 528 to edge resulting in full screen of either window on each side of the divider Peterson; Par. 224; FIG. 5FF also illustrates a dragging gesture with a contact 5114, where the divider 528 is dragged to an edge of the user interface (e.g., right edge) according to a movement vector 5116 (e.g., left-to-right dragging gesture). FIG. 5GG illustrates a merged window 5118 (e.g., a full screen window) in response to the dragging gesture in FIG. 5FF.)
Claim 14 depends on claim 11:
Lin/Peterson teaches wherein the fourth operation corresponding to the fourth application interface comprises: a sliding operation of taking an end of the window partition bar as a starting point and sliding by a sixth preset distance or for a sixth preset duration along a side edge intersecting with the window partition bar in the display screen. (e.g., exiting split screen display in response to dragging divider 528 to edge resulting in full screen of either window on each side of the divider Peterson; Par. 224; FIG. 5FF also illustrates a dragging gesture with a contact 5114, where the divider 528 is dragged to an edge of the user interface (e.g., right edge) according to a movement vector 5116 (e.g., left-to-right dragging gesture). FIG. 5GG illustrates a merged window 5118 (e.g., a full screen window) in response to the dragging gesture in FIG. 5FF.)
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is substantially encompassed in claim 1; therefore, Examiner relies on the same rationale set forth in claim 1 to reject claim 17.
Claim 18 depends on claim 17:
Claim 18 is substantially encompassed in claim 2; therefore, Examiner relies on the same rationale set forth in claim 2 to reject claim 18.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is substantially encompassed in claim 1; therefore, Examiner relies on the same rationale set forth in claim 1 to reject claim 20.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin/Peterson as cited above, in view of Cao et al. (hereinafter “Cao””), WO 2020007114 A1 published 2020-01-09 (see attached English translated version 50 pages).
Claim 15 depends on claim 1:
Lin/Peterson fails to expressly teach floatingly displaying a shortcut application icon bar on the display screen.
However, Cao teaches further comprising: floatingly displaying a shortcut application icon bar on the display screen, in response to a fifth operation acting on a window partition bar between the first split screen window and the second split screen window, wherein the shortcut application icon bar covers at least a portion of at least one of the first split screen window or the second split screen window. (e.g., providing a floating window comprising application identifiers that can be switched to and that is displayed in response to an gesture operation on the partition bar as shown in Figures 2 and 3 page 2 out of 50; In a first aspect, an embodiment of the present application provides a split-screen application switching method, including: When the electronic device displays a split-screen interface, a partition bar is generated in the split-screen interface, and the partition bar is located between multiple split-screen applications; Receiving a first operation triggered by a user for the separation bar; Generating, according to the first operation, an application identifier corresponding to a target application that is currently not split screen; Receiving a second operation triggered by a user for the application identifier, and switching the target application and the split-screen application according to the second operation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the partition bar of the split-screen mode as taught by Lin/Peterson to include application identifiers as taught by Cao, to provide the benefit of an efficient transition between multiple split screen applications. (see Cao; page 2 out of 50)
Claim 16 depends on claim 15:
Lin/Peterson/Cao teaches wherein the fifth operation comprises: a sliding operation of taking an end of the window partition bar as a starting point and sliding by a seventh preset distance or for a seventh preset duration along an extension direction of the window partition bar. (e.g., providing a floating window comprising application identifiers that can be switched to and that is displayed in response to an gesture operation on the partition bar (i.e., sliding operation of taking an end of the window partition bar) as shown in Cao; Figures 2 and 3 page 2 out of 50; In a first aspect, an embodiment of the present application provides a split-screen application switching method, including: When the electronic device displays a split-screen interface, a partition bar is generated in the split-screen interface, and the partition bar is located between multiple split-screen applications; Receiving a first operation triggered by a user for the separation bar; Generating, according to the first operation, an application identifier corresponding to a target application that is currently not split screen; Receiving a second operation triggered by a user for the application identifier, and switching the target application and the split-screen application according to the second operation.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant submits that regarding claims 2 and 3, the Office Action points out that they are not disclosed in prior art LIN, but are disclosed in prior art PETERSON. (see Response; page 10)
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that the Office Action relied upon Lin to teach claim 2. Peterson was relied upon to teach a portion of the limitations of previous claim 3.
Applicant argues that Prior art LIN does not disclose that the lower split-screen window can be switched to a split- screen desktop interface, i.e., does not disclose "in response to a first operation acting on the first split screen window, switching a first application interface displayed in the first split screen window to a split-screen desktop interface; wherein the split-screen desktop interface comprises icons of a plurality of application programs in the electronic apparatus." (see Response; page 10)
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant admits Figure 3 of LIN shows that when the user slides rightward in the lower split-screen display window, the lower split-screen display window switches to task windows (i.e., thumbnail windows) of background applications C, D, E, F.
Examiner submits that rightward user slide operation causes B application (i.e., first application interface) to switch to a grouped plurality of thumbnail task windows (i.e., desktop interface) (see annotated Lin’s Figure 3 below). Therefore, Lin does teach or suggest "in response to a first operation acting on the first split screen window, switching a first application interface displayed in the first split screen window to a split-screen desktop interface; wherein the split-screen desktop interface comprises icons of a plurality of application programs in the electronic apparatus” as recited in the claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
359
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that the tab is dragged to the predetermined region, rather than using the tab as a starting point for sliding a preset distance or for a preset duration. Moreover, the technical effect produced by prior art PETERSON is switching the interface from full-screen mode to split-screen mode, rather than switching one interface in a split-screen window to another interface. Therefore, prior art PETERSON does not disclose "the first operation corresponding to the split-screen desktop interface comprises: a sliding operation of taking a navigation bar displayed in the first split screen window as a starting point and sliding by a first preset distance or for a first preset duration toward a direction away from the navigation bar on the first split screen window." (see Response; page 11)
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner submits that dragging a tab to a predetermined region requires using the tab as a starting point for sliding a preset distance to the predetermined region. Examiner notes that Lin is relied upon to teach the technical effected of switching the one interface into another interface. Peterson is relied upon to teach known slide operation in analogous art of split screen interfaces and how it would be obvious to try using an interface element as a starting point for a slide operation.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Examiner maintains prior rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY ORR whose telephone number is (571)270-1308. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571)272-4140. 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.
/HENRY ORR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights