DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 28 November 2025, claims 2-3 are canceled. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 1 is pending.
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 101, filed on 28 November 2025, have been carefully considered. Based on the claim amendments, the rejections have been updated below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding 103, filed on 28 November 2025, have been carefully considered. Based on the claim amendments, new references have been incorporated. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “using the source page” and “using user input to determine a data type and inter- relationship to other data”. These claim limitations appear to be citing intended use in terms of what the source page and user inputs are used for. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite the functionality performed by the claimed method, instead of reciting what the claim elements are used for.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 is recited as being directed to a “method”. Thus claim 1 has been identified to be directed towards the appropriate statutory category. Below is further analysis related to step 2.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 2A: Prong One:
Claim 1 recites limitations:
for a source page associated with a first content source,
creating a template associated with the source page;
allowing a user to identify a region using the source page;
for the identified region, using user input to determine a data type and inter- relationship to other data;
processing the first content portion from the first content source, the second content portion from the second content source, and the third content portion from the third content source;
assembling the first content portion from the first content source, the second content portion from the second content source, and the third content portion from the third content source, utilizing at least one web page;
These claim limitations appear to be reciting a “Mental Process” including evaluation.
A human mind can mentally evaluate to create a template, allow a user to identify a region using the source page and also determining data type and inter-relationship to the other data. A human being can mentally apply evaluation to process contents from various data sources. A human being can evaluate to assemble data content from various data sources.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
The abstract idea does not appear to be integrated into a practical application with the recitation of the following claim language.
Claim 1 further recites limitations:
A computer-based method, comprising:
These claim limitations appear to be to merely add the use of generic computer components which are merely executing the abstract idea within a computer device (see MPEP 2106.05(b)) and do not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application.
Claim 1 further recites limitations:
receiving a first content portion from the first content source;
receiving a second content portion from a second content source;
receiving a third content portion from a third content source;
publishing content including the first content portion from the first content source, the second content portion from the second content source, and the third content portion from the third content source, utilizing the at least one web page;
receiving, by the first web publisher, different comments on at least part of the published content from the first users associated with the first on-line community;
receiving, by the first web publisher, ratings of at least some of the published content from the first users associated with the first on-line community;
causing communication of at least a first portion of the content for publishing by a second web publisher that is different from the first web publisher;
causing communication of at least one first comment for publishing by the second web publisher that is different from the first web publisher;
causing communication of at least a second portion of the content for publishing by a third web publisher that is different from the first web publisher and different from the second web publisher; and
causing communication of at least one second comment for publishing by the third web publisher that is different from the first web publisher and different from the second web publisher.
These claim limitations as a whole have been identified as insignificant extra-solution activity. Per MPEP 2106.05(g) “An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent”. Similarly, the claim limitations as a whole above appear to be gathering data and do not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The abstract idea does not appear to be significantly more with the recitation of the following claim language.
Claim 1 further recites limitations:
A computer-based method, comprising:
These claim limitations appear to be to merely add the use of generic computer components which are merely executing the abstract idea within a computer device (see MPEP 2106.05(b)) and do not appear to amount to significantly more.
Claim 1 further recites limitations:
receiving a first content portion from the first content source;
receiving a second content portion from a second content source;
receiving a third content portion from a third content source;
publishing content including the first content portion from the first content source, the second content portion from the second content source, and the third content portion from the third content source, utilizing the at least one web page;
receiving, by the first web publisher, different comments on at least part of the published content from the first users associated with the first on-line community;
receiving, by the first web publisher, ratings of at least some of the published content from the first users associated with the first on-line community;
causing communication of at least a first portion of the content for publishing by a second web publisher that is different from the first web publisher;
causing communication of at least one first comment for publishing by the second web publisher that is different from the first web publisher;
causing communication of at least a second portion of the content for publishing by a third web publisher that is different from the first web publisher and different from the second web publisher; and
causing communication of at least one second comment for publishing by the third web publisher that is different from the first web publisher and different from the second web publisher.
These claim limitations as a whole have been identified as insignificant extra-solution activity. Per MPEP 2106.05(g) “An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent”. Similarly the claim limitations as a whole above appear to be gathering data in terms of requests, data and content being received and appear to be conventional computer functionality. Also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) has identified “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” as conventional computer technology. Similarly, the claim limitations identified above appear to be receiving data. As a result, these claim limitations as a whole do not appear to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “receiving, by the first web publisher, different comments” should read as -- receiving, by a first web publisher, different comments-- as it appears to be a typographical error and may cause antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,352,419 in view of Balasubramanyan et al. (US 7,458,021 B2, hereinafter “Bala”). The patented claim teaches the limitations of the claim as shown by comparison below in bold.
Current Application
U.S. Patent No. 8,352,419
A computer-based method, comprising:
A method, comprising:
for a source page associated with a first content source,
the first content source,… utilizing at least one web page
creating a template associated with the source page; allowing a user to identify a region using the source page; for the identified region, using user input to determine a data type and inter- relationship to other data;
receiving a first content portion from the first content source;
receiving a first content portion from a first content source;
receiving a second content portion from a second content source;
receiving a second content portion from a second content source;
receiving a third content portion from a third content source;
receiving a third content portion from a third content source;
processing the first content portion from the first content source, the second content portion from the second content source, and the third content portion from the third content source;
processing the first content portion from the first content source, the second content portion from the second content source, and the third content portion from the third
content source;
assembling the first content portion from the first content source, the second content portion from the second content source, and the third content portion from the third content source, utilizing at least one web page;
assembling the first content portion from the first content source, the second content portion from the second content source, and the third content portion from the third content source, utilizing at least one web page;
publishing content including the first content portion from the first content source, the second content portion from the second content source, and the third content portion from the third content source, utilizing the at least one web page;
publishing content including the first content portion from the first content source, the second content portion from the second content source, and the third content portion from the third content source, utilizing the at least one web page;
receiving, by the first web publisher, different comments on at least part of the published content from the first users associated with the first on-line community;
receiving, by the first web publisher, different user textual inputs on at least part of the published content from the first users associated with the first on-line community;
receiving, by the first web publisher, ratings of at least some of the published content from the first users associated with the first on-line community;
receiving, by the first web publisher, ratings of at least some of the published content from the first users associated with the first on-line community;
causing communication of at least a first portion of the content for publishing by a second web publisher that is different from the first web publisher;
causing communication of at least a first portion of the content for publishing by a second web publisher that is different from the first web publisher;
causing communication of at least one first comment for publishing by the second web publisher that is different from the first web publisher;
causing a transfer of the at least one first user textual input with the first portion of the content, for publishing by the second
web publisher;
causing communication of at least a second portion of the content for publishing by a third web publisher that is different from the first web publisher and different from the second web publisher; and
causing communication of at least a second portion of the content for publishing by a third web publisher that is different from the first web publisher and different from
the second web publisher;
causing communication of at least one second comment for publishing by the third web publisher that is different from the first web publisher and different from the second web publisher.
causing a transfer of the at least one second user textual input with the second portion of the content, for publishing by the third web publisher;
third web publisher that is different from the first web publisher and different from
the second web publisher.
Here claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,352,419 recites a method of processing web page data. The first difference is that the current claim language recites comment and U.S. Patent No. 8,352,419 recites user textual input. They are both referring to the same information. The claims from U.S. Patent No. 8,352,419 differ from claim 1 of the current application in that they fail to disclose to creating a template associated with the source page; allowing a user to identify a region using the source page; for the identified region, using user input to determine a data type and inter- relationship to other data. Bala teaches that in [cols4, 5 and 6], the concept of creating the template, identify a region and determine data types and relationships. Therefore it would have been obvious to modify claim 1 of the patent to display information accurately on the web page. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to yield the predictable results of applying templates effectively to render fields (see Bala, [col 6 lines 18-21] “This revisualization of existing web pages is supported by defining the allowed fields in the schema and including a link in the schema to those templates that are effective at rendering all of the allowed fields within the selected schema”).
As a result, claim 1 of the current application falls entirely within the scope of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,352,419.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stern et al. (US 7,418,653 B1, hereinafter “Stern”) in view of Balasubramanyan et al. (US 7,458,021 B2, hereinafter “Bala”) further in view of Petras et al. (US 2004/0205065 A1, hereinafter “Petras”).
Regarding claim 1, Stern teaches
A computer-based method, comprising: (see Stern, [col 3 line 66 – col 4 line 1] “a method for publishing a newspaper page or other data through a Web page”).
for a source page associated with a first content source, (see Stern, [col 5 lines 5-7] “archived data can optionally be easily integrated with current sources of data, such that the newspaper which is published in the Web page format”; [col 3 line 67] “publishing a newspaper page”).
… the source page; (see Stern, [col 3 line 67] “publishing a newspaper page”).
… using the source page; (see Stern, [col 3 line 67] “publishing a newspaper page”).
receiving a first content portion from the first content source; (see Stern, [col 4 lines 54-56] “a system 10 optionally and preferably features different sources of data, such as a first source 12 which contains new data” – Fig. 1).
receiving a second content portion from a second content source; (see Stern, [col 4 lines 54-57] “a system 10 optionally and preferably features different sources of data, such as… a second source 14 which contains archived data” – Fig. 1).
receiving a third content portion from a third content source; (see Stern, [col 4 lines 54-56] “a system 10 optionally and preferably features different sources of data”; [col 5 lines 5-6] “current sources of data” – there are plurality of current sources of data).
processing the first content portion from the first content source, the second content portion from the second content source, and the third content portion from the third content source; (see Stern, [col 6 lines 9-11] “XML distiller module 18 optionally and preferably is able to perform a number of additional functions, for greater flexibility in creating the desired Web page structures” – Fig. 1; [col 8 lines 58-59] “for converting the data into the internal format for publication”).
assembling the first content portion from the first content source, the second content portion from the second content source, and the third content portion from the third content source, utilizing at least one web page; (see Stern, [col 5 lines 4-9] “archived data can optionally be easily integrated with current sources of data, such that the newspaper which is published in the Web page format can represent a combination of current and previously published information” – Fig. 1; [col 2 lines 9-12] “for publishing a newspaper page or other data through a Web page, such that the information can be made available more easily through a network such as the Internet”).
publishing content including the first content portion from the first content source, the second content portion from the second content source, and the third content portion from the third content source, utilizing the at least one web page; (see Stern, [col 8 lines 6-8] “the internal format data is published in a plurality of different final formats by publication server 22”- Fig.1; [col 8 lines 58-59] “for converting the data into the internal format for publication”; [col 2 lines 9-12] “for publishing a newspaper page or other data through a Web page, such that the information can be made available more easily through a network such as the Internet”).
Stern does not explicitly teach creating a template associated with the source page; allowing a user to identify a region using the source page; for the identified region, using user input to determine a data type and inter-relationship to other data; receiving, by the first web publisher, different comments on at least part of the published content from the first users associated with the first on-line community; receiving, by the first web publisher, ratings of at least some of the published content from the first users associated with the first on-line community; causing communication of at least a first portion of the content for publishing by a second web publisher that is different from the first web publisher; causing communication of at least one first comment for publishing by the second web publisher that is different from the first web publisher; causing communication of at least a second portion of the content for publishing by a third web publisher that is different from the first web publisher and different from the second web publisher; and causing communication of at least one second comment for publishing by the third web publisher that is different from the first web publisher and different from the second web publisher.
However, Bala discloses web page templates and teaches
creating a template associated with web page (see Bala, [col 5 lines 46-60] “Selection module 230 may also alternatively include tools permitting a user to modify existing schema and templates or to create new schema and templates… Data input module 240 may also have an interactive editor that renders the input data using the chosen template to provide the user with a preview of the finished web page).
allowing a user to identify a region (see Bala, [col 5 lines 5-12] “System 200 also includes a template module 220. Each schema, such as press release schema 210, may include a link to a list of one or more templates that may be used to render or visualize any data, which may be input according to the schema. Templates are defined for each schema and define how data entered into one of the required or permitted fields will appear when the data is released for electronic publication”).
for the identified region, using user input to determine a data type and (see Bala, [col 4 lines 42-45] “A schema module 210 provides a location for the storage and maintenance of a plurality of page schema. Each schema defines a particular type of web page”; [col 6 lines 39-45] “data is inserted for the required content types of the selected schema… data may be inserted into any defined optional content types or fields of the schema. This operation may include use of an editor that interprets the content types of the schema to ensure that appropriate data is entered for the different fields of the schema”) inter- relationship to other data; (see Bala, [col 4 lines 59-67] “Press release schema 400 may also permit a photograph or other image 420 be included in the press release but may require that any image files included by in JPEG format and between certain upper and lower size limits. Press release schema 400 may also include a link to one or more other locations, such as the web site of an organization referred to in the press release or another web page providing financial reports related to the subject of the press release”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the functionality of template, region, data type, relationship as being disclosed and taught by Bala, in the system taught by Stern to yield the predictable results of applying templates effectively to render fields (see Bala, [col 6 lines 18-21] “This revisualization of existing web pages is supported by defining the allowed fields in the schema and including a link in the schema to those templates that are effective at rendering all of the allowed fields within the selected schema”).
The proposed combination of Stern and Bala does not explicitly teach receiving, by the first web publisher, ratings of at least some of the published content from the first users associated with the first on-line community; causing communication of at least a first portion of the content for publishing by a second web publisher that is different from the first web publisher; causing communication of at least one first comment for publishing by the second web publisher that is different from the first web publisher; causing communication of at least a second portion of the content for publishing by a third web publisher that is different from the first web publisher and different from the second web publisher; and causing communication of at least one second comment for publishing by the third web publisher that is different from the first web publisher and different from the second web publisher.
However, Petras discloses user opinions and teaches
receiving, by the first web publisher, different comments on at least part of the published content from the first users associated with the first on-line community; (see Petras, [0398] “When adding Subjects to a site, users first enter some basic information about it: location, cost, time needed to experience it, and a short description”; [0469] “After comments have been added and Descriptive Words have been rated, a screen returns showing that the entry information has been added to MyPage and thanking the user for doing the rating, after which the user may return to the Subject he/she just rated, or use the top navigation bar to go elsewhere on the site”; [0286] “users may perform certain tasks or otherwise exercise functions, preferably comprising: Search for subjects, Add/Change Subjects, Rate Subjects, Comment on Subjects”; [0406] “Users are compensated with points for performing each of many actions that build a strong online community: adding content to the site, enriching existing content with comments and ratings”).
receiving, by the first web publisher, ratings of at least some of the published content from the first users associated with the first on-line community; (see Petras, [0398] “When adding Subjects to a site, users first enter some basic information about it: location, cost, time needed to experience it, and a short description”; [0469] “After comments have been added and Descriptive Words have been rated, a screen returns showing that the entry information has been added to MyPage and thanking the user for doing the rating, after which the user may return to the Subject he/she just rated, or use the top navigation bar to go elsewhere on the site”; [0286] “users may perform certain tasks or otherwise exercise functions, preferably comprising: Search for subjects, Add/Change Subjects, Rate Subjects, Comment on Subjects”; [0406] “Users are compensated with points for performing each of many actions that build a strong online community: adding content to the site, enriching existing content with comments and ratings”).
causing communication of at least a first portion of the content for publishing by a second web publisher that is different from the first web publisher; (see Petras, [0397] “the ability to publish opinions on the Web, and create an easy-to-access database of those opinions”; [0472] “Each Subject this user has added is displayed here, along with the number of Lives Touched by each Subject and the number of Comments that other users have left for each Subject… Clicking on the numbered link under the "Comments" column returns a screen like the one illustrated in FIG. 61. Each row contains the date each comment was added, the comment's name, the number of lives touched by the comment and the percent of other visitors who agreed with the comment” – there are plurality of users posting comments i.e. second web publisher).
causing communication of at least one first comment for publishing by the second web publisher that is different from the first web publisher; (see Petras, [0397] “the ability to publish opinions on the Web, and create an easy-to-access database of those opinions”; [0472] “Each Subject this user has added is displayed here, along with the number of Lives Touched by each Subject and the number of Comments that other users have left for each Subject… Clicking on the numbered link under the "Comments" column returns a screen like the one illustrated in FIG. 61. Each row contains the date each comment was added, the comment's name, the number of lives touched by the comment and the percent of other visitors who agreed with the comment”; [0026] “determining first such user's role as member or contributor… collecting comments about each such database subject according to the opinion of each of such involved subset of such population of users” – there are plurality of users posting comments i.e. second web publisher).
causing communication of at least a second portion of the content for publishing by a third web publisher that is different from the first web publisher and different from the second web publisher; and (see Petras, [0397] “the ability to publish opinions on the Web, and create an easy-to-access database of those opinions”; [0472] “Each Subject this user has added is displayed here, along with the number of Lives Touched by each Subject and the number of Comments that other users have left for each Subject… Clicking on the numbered link under the "Comments" column returns a screen like the one illustrated in FIG. 61. Each row contains the date each comment was added, the comment's name, the number of lives touched by the comment and the percent of other visitors who agreed with the comment” – there are plurality of users posting comments i.e. third web publisher).
causing communication of at least one second comment for publishing by the third web publisher that is different from the first web publisher and different from the second web publisher (see Petras, [0397] “the ability to publish opinions on the Web, and create an easy-to-access database of those opinions”; [0472] “Each Subject this user has added is displayed here, along with the number of Lives Touched by each Subject and the number of Comments that other users have left for each Subject… Clicking on the numbered link under the "Comments" column returns a screen like the one illustrated in FIG. 61. Each row contains the date each comment was added, the comment's name, the number of lives touched by the comment and the percent of other visitors who agreed with the comment” ; [0026] “determining first such user's role as member or contributor… collecting comments about each such database subject according to the opinion of each of such involved subset of such population of users” – there are plurality of users posting comments i.e. third web publisher).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the functionality of comments, ratings and comments from plurality of web publishers as being disclosed and taught by Petras, in the system taught by the proposed combination of Stern and Bala to yield the predictable results of applying templates effectively to render fields (see Petras, [0002] “More particularly, it relates to a system for automatically creating and maintaining a database of information utilizing user opinions. Even more particularly, it relates to an Internet system assisting a population of users to automatically maintain the database content and to improve the usefulness and quality of the database information without any substantial management by the website owner-manager”).
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 VAISHALI SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-8532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (7:30 AM to 4:00 PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, AJAY BHATIA can be reached at (571)272-3906. 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.
/VAISHALI SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156