DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s current amendment (dated 18 FEBRUARY 2026), has been entered. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are currently pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 FEBRUARY 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference(s) and/or citations being used in the current rejection.
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 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutta et al., US 6,851,090 in view of Garcia Navarro, US 2016/0088358 and further in view of Sayyadi-Harikandehei et al., US 2018/0144052 and Dasgupta et al., US 2014/0298386.
Regarding claim 1, Gutta discloses an information processing device comprising:
one or more first memories for storing, and at least one first processor coupled to at least one of the one or more memories (with at least processor and connected memory; col. 4, lines 6-12, and Fig. 1) and configured to:
obtain a viewing history of one or more items of broadcast content viewed by a user in a past predetermined period (user profile contains information about viewing preferences, wherein this is learned from a user’s viewing history, i.e. from a past period; col. 3, line 57 – col. 4, line 6, and with use of various components/elements in the system; col. 4, lines 7-20, and Fig. 1, and with television programming, i.e. broadcast content; col. 2, lines 59-67, and col. 3, lines 10-16);
assign a first score related to a preference tag assigned to each of a plurality of items of broadcast content among a plurality of preference tags of different kinds corresponding to a plurality of preferences of different kinds of a viewer (attributes, i.e. tags, for programming can have at least a first score determined and associated based on the preferences/viewing history information of the user, and wherein the attributes can be a plurality of different kinds; col. 4, lines 21 – 65, and Figs. 2 and 3, and with use of various components/elements in the system; col. 4, lines 7-20, and Fig. 1);
assign a second score related to a combined preference tag or a single preference tag corresponding to each of the plurality of items of broadcast content among a plurality of combined preference tags of different patterns and a plurality of single preference tags of different patterns (a piece of content may have more than one attribute and therefore will have more than one score according to the decision tree; col. 4, lines 21 – 65, and Figs. 2 and 3, and wherein the system can also calculate score based on combinations and/or singular attributes/tags, such as combinations relating to call sign and time, or singular attributes relating to specific title, actor, genre, etc.; Fig. 4, and col. 5, lines 15-27, and with use of various components/elements in the system; col. 4, lines 7-20, and Fig. 1), each of the plurality of combined preference tags being a combination of two or more of the plurality of preference tags, each of the plurality of single preference tags being one of the plurality of preference tags solely assigned to the broadcast content (combinations and/or singular attributes/tags, such as combinations relating to call sign and time, or singular attributes relating to specific title, actor, genre, etc.; Fig. 4, and col. 5, lines 15-27), wherein:
a first preference information from the first score assigned for each of the one or more items of broadcast content included in the viewing history obtained (again, attributes, i.e. tags, for programming can have at least a first score determined and associated based on the preferences/viewing history information of the user, and wherein the attributes can be a plurality of different kinds; col. 4, lines 21 – 65, and Figs. 2 and 3),
a second preference information from the second score assigned for each of the one or more items of broadcast content included in the viewing history obtained (again, a piece of content may have more than one attribute and therefore will have more than one score according to the decision tree; col. 4, lines 21 – 65, and Figs. 2 and 3, and wherein the system can also calculate score based on combinations and/or singular attributes/tags, such as combinations relating to call sign and time, or singular attributes relating to specific title, actor, genre, etc.; Fig. 4, and col. 5, lines 15-27), the at least one first processor (again with at least processor; col. 4, lines 6-12, and Fig. 1) further configured to:
refer to the first preference information and the second preference information and output preference information that matches a preference of the user in the past predetermined period (display recommendation process displays program grid to the user with each available program displayed together with the overall recommendation score, i.e. based on the first and second preference information/scores, and, optionally, an indication of the contribution of one or more of the significant attributes to the overall recommendation score; col. 5, lines 55-65, and Fig. 6A, and col. 6, lines 23-31, and with use of various components/elements in the system; col. 4, lines 7-20, and Fig. 1), the preference information including one or more preference tags among (i) the plurality of preference tags, (ii) the plurality of combined preference tags, and (iii) the plurality of single preference tags (again, the preference information can be combinations and/or singular attributes/tags, such as combinations relating to call sign and time, or singular attributes relating to specific title, actor, genre, etc.; Fig. 4, and col. 5, lines 15-27).
While Gutta does mention table data (col. 5, lines 14-27), as well as a plurality of preference tags (attributes based on the preferences/viewing history information of the user, and wherein the attributes can be a plurality of different kinds; col. 4, lines 21 – 65, and Figs. 2 and 3) broadcast content (with television programming, i.e. broadcast content; col. 2, lines 59-67, and col. 3, lines 10-16), each of the plurality of preference tags of the one or more items of broadcast content included in the viewing history obtained (attributes, i.e. tags, for programming can have at least a first score determined and associated based on the preferences/viewing history information of the user, and wherein the attributes can be a plurality of different kinds; col. 4, lines 21 – 65, and Figs. 2 and 3, and with use of various components/elements in the system; col. 4, lines 7-20, and Fig. 1), each of the plurality of combined preference tags and the plurality of single preference tags of the one or more items of broadcast content included in the viewing history obtained (a piece of content may have more than one attribute and therefore will have more than one score according to the decision tree; col. 4, lines 21 – 65, and Figs. 2 and 3, and wherein the system can also calculate score based on combinations and/or singular attributes/tags, such as combinations relating to call sign and time, or singular attributes relating to specific title, actor, genre, etc.; Fig. 4, and col. 5, lines 15-27, and with use of various components/elements in the system; col. 4, lines 7-20, and Fig. 1), and output, based on the preference information including one or more preference tags among (i) the plurality of preference tags, (ii) the plurality of combined preference tags, and (iii) the plurality of single preference tags (display recommendation process displays program grid to the user with each available program displayed together with the overall recommendation score, i.e. based on the first and second preference information/scores, and, optionally, an indication of the contribution of one or more of the significant attributes to the overall recommendation score; col. 5, lines 55-65, and Fig. 6A, and col. 6, lines 23-31, and wherein the preference information can be combinations and/or singular attributes/tags, such as combinations relating to call sign and time, or singular attributes relating to specific title, actor, genre, etc.; Fig. 4, and col. 5, lines 15-27), Gutta does not explicitly disclose storing a first table and a second table, the first table stores a first score assigned for each of the one or more items of broadcast content included in the viewing history obtained, and the second table stores a second score assigned for each of the one or more items of broadcast content included in the viewing history obtained;
the first table and the second table;
a first score indicates whether a corresponding one of a plurality of tags has been assigned to a corresponding one of a plurality of items of content;
calculate, for each of a plurality of preference tags stored a sum of the first scores;
calculate, for each of the plurality of combined preference tags and the plurality of single preference tags stored, a sum of the second scores; and
output, based on the sum of the first scores calculated and the sum of the second score calculated.
In a related art, Garcia Navarro does disclose storing a first table and a second table (stored table information; page 8, paragraphs 79 and 81, and wherein in at least memory/storage location(s); page 4, paragraph 42, and page 5, paragraphs 47-49, and with multiple tables; Figs. 11-13, and page 8, paragraphs 71 and 81), the first table stores a first score assigned for each of the one or more items of broadcast content included in a viewing history obtained (based on viewing history; page 6, paragraph 56, and wherein with tables of scores/values, i.e. including at least a first; Figs. 11-13, and page 8, paragraphs 71 and 81), and the second table stores a second score assigned for each of the one or more items of broadcast content included in the viewing history obtained (again based on viewing history; page 6, paragraph 56, and wherein with tables of scores/values, i.e. including at least a second; Figs. 11-13, and page 8, paragraphs 71 and 81);
the first table and the second table (with the multiple tables; Figs. 11-13, and page 8, paragraphs 71 and 81);
referring to the first table and the second table (output/display of the preference(s), and again in relation to table(s); Fig. 5, and page 6, paragraph 56, and Figs 11-13, and wherein can also output/display of recommendations based on the preference(s); page 7, paragraph 62, and Fig. 6);
calculate, for each of the plurality of preference tags stored in the first preference information table, the first scores of the one or more items of broadcast content included in the viewing history obtained (based on viewing history; page 6, paragraph 56, and wherein can calculate the points/scores associated with the attributes/tags in a first table, such that they add up to particular points and total at 100%; Fig. 12, and page 8, paragraph 71);
calculate, for the data stored in the second preference information table, the second scores of the one or more items of broadcast content included in the viewing history obtained (based on viewing history; page 6, paragraph 56, and can calculate the points/scores associated with the attributes/tags in a second table, such that they add up to particular points and total at 100%; Fig. 13, and page 8, paragraph 71); and
output, based on the first scores calculated and the second scores calculated, the preference information including one or more preference tags among (i) the plurality of preference tags, (ii) the plurality of combined preference tags, and (iii) the plurality of single preference tags (Garcia Navarro; output/display of the preference(s), and again in relation to table(s); Fig. 5, and page 6, paragraph 56, and Figs 11-13, and wherein can also output/display of recommendations based on the preference(s); page 7, paragraph 62, and Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Gutta and Garcia Navarro by allowing utilized information to be stored in table forms as shown in Garcia Navarro, in order to provide an improved system and method for a scheduled programming recommendation system which narrows down a user's total list of program choices to a shorter, more manageable list (Garcia Navarro; page 1, paragraph 6).
Gutta in view of Garcia Navarro does not explicitly disclose a first score indicates whether a corresponding one of a plurality of tags has been assigned to a corresponding one of a plurality of items of content; and
calculate, for each of a plurality of preference information, a sum of first data of one or more items of content;
calculate, for each of a plurality of combined preference information and a plurality of single preference information, a sum of second data of one or more items of content; and
output, based on the sum of the first data calculated and the sum of the second data calculated.
In a related art, Sayyadi-Harikandehei does disclose a first score indicates whether a corresponding one of a plurality of tags has been assigned to a corresponding one of a plurality of items of content (score can be given as indication that metadata tag has been assigned to particular content, and wherein in relation to preference/requested metadata/tags; page 4, paragraphs 34-35, and page 9, paragraph 72, and page 10, paragraph 74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Gutta, Garcia Navarro, and Sayyadi-Harikandehei by allowing scores/values, as already disclosed in Gutta in view of Garcia Navarro, to be utilized for indication of tags that are associated with specific content, in order to provide an improved system and method for processing and identifying content similarities to alleviate processing burdens and maximize computing resources for content recommendation systems (Sayyadi-Harikandehei; page 1, paragraph 1).
Gutta in view of Garcia Navarro, and Sayyadi-Harikandehei does not explicitly disclose calculate, for each of a plurality of preference information, a sum of first data of one or more items of content;
calculate, for each of a plurality of combined preference information and a plurality of single preference information, a sum of second data of one or more items of content; and
output, based on the sum of the first data calculated and the sum of the second data calculated, information including one or more preference tags.
In a related art, Dasgupta does disclose calculate, for each of a plurality of preference information, a sum of first data of one or more items of content (sets of individual metadata relating to particular tags, such as a person/celebrity and/or genre are identified from viewing data in order to compute sums relating to scores for those tags; page 2, paragraph 22, and page 7, paragraph 56, and see TABLE 6(a), with at least “Arnold” having right column Grand Total summed score of 4, and “Catherine Zeta Jones” having right column Grand Total summed score of 3, and see TABLE 6(b), with at least “Adult” having a right column Grand Total summed score of 2, and “Adventure” having a right column Grand Total summed score of 2);
calculate, for each of a plurality of combined preference information and a plurality of single preference information, a sum of second data of one or more items of content (combinations of the sets are also used from the viewing data in order to compute sums relating to scores for those tags; page 2, paragraph 23, and page 8, paragraph 57, and see TABLE 6(a), with at least the combination of “Catherine Zeta Jones” + “Kate, Leonardo” + “Tom Cruise” having a combined first column Grand Total summed score of 3 relating to an aspect of viewing data, and see TABLE 6(b), with at least the combination of “Drama” + “Horror” having a combined first column Grand Total summed score of 3 relating to an aspect of viewing data, and again sets of individual metadata relating to particular tags, such as a person/celebrity and/or genre are identified from viewing data in order to compute sums relating to scores for those tags; page 2, paragraph 22, and page 7, paragraph 56, and see TABLE 6(a), with at least “Arnold” having right column Grand Total summed score of 4, and “Catherine Zeta Jones” having right column Grand Total summed score of 3, and see TABLE 6(b), with at least “Adult” having a right column Grand Total summed score of 2, and “Adventure” having a right column Grand Total summed score of 2); and
output, based on the sum of the first data calculated and the sum of the second data calculated, information including one or more preference tags (providing the determined metadata/tags based on the calculations; page 9, paragraph 61, and page 10, paragraph 71).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Gutta, Garcia Navarro, Sayyadi-Harikandehei, and Dasgupta by allowing scores/values, as already disclosed in Gutta in view of Garcia Navarro and Sayyadi-Harikandehei, to be calculated and utilized to determine preferred keywords/tags for recommending content, in order to provide an improved system and method for providing personalized content recommendation and content availability information based on a user’s interests (Dasgupta; page 1, paragraph 10, and page 2, paragraphs 16-17).
Regarding claim 2, Gutta in view of Garcia Navarro, Sayyadi-Harikandehei, and Dasgupta discloses for one item of broadcast content, the at least one first processor (Gutta; again with at least processor; col. 4, lines 6-12, and Fig. 1) is further configured to:
assign a first value as the first score to a preference tag assigned to the one item of broadcast content among the plurality of preference tags (Gutta; one item of broadcast content with particular title preference attribute, i.e. such as “Your House”, will have a particular value/score associated with it; Fig. 4, row 405, and col. 5, lines 14-32, and Sayyadi-Harikandehei; score can be given as indication that metadata tag has been assigned to particular content, and wherein in relation to preference/requested metadata tags; page 4, paragraphs 34-35, and page 9, paragraph 72, and page 10, paragraph 74), and
assign a second value different from the first value as the first score to a preference tag that is not assigned to the one item of broadcast content among the plurality of preference tags (Gutta; other preference attributes that are not associated with the particular piece of broadcast content with the specific title, i.e. those not titled “Your House”, will have a different value/score; Fig. 4, row 416, and col. 5, lines 14-32, and Sayyadi-Harikandehei; assign scores/values based on other metadata tags, i.e. not assigned; page 15, paragraph 107).
Regarding claim 3, Gutta in view of Garcia Navarro, Sayyadi-Harikandehei, and Dasgupta discloses for the one item of broadcast content, the at least one first processor (Gutta; again with at least processor; col. 4, lines 6-12, and Fig. 1) is further configured to:
when each of numerical values of the first score assigned to the two or more preference tags in one pattern of combined preference tag among the plurality of combined preference tags is the first value, assign the first value as the second score to the one pattern of combined preference tag (Gutta; when singular scores/values such as TITLE and ACTOR are 100.0%, the combined score would be 100.0%; Fig. 4, rows 405 and 413, and col. 5, lines 14-32, and Dasgupta; see TABLE 6(a), with at least the combination of “Catherine Zeta Jones” + “Kate, Leonardo” + “Tom Cruise” having a combined first column Grand Total summed score of 3 relating to an aspect of viewing data, and see TABLE 6(b), with at least the combination of “Drama” + “Horror” having a combined first column Grand Total summed score of 3 relating to an aspect of viewing data), and assign the second value as the second score to each of single preference tags among the plurality of single preference tags, each of the single preference tags being one of the two or more preference tags in the one pattern of combined preference tag solely assigned to the one item of broadcast content (Gutta; a particular, i.e. second, score/value can be assigned to singular attributes that can be part of a combination, but are not associated with some combinations such as TIME<=9:30AM and/or DEFAULT having assigned score/value of 2.0% and/or 0%; Fig. 4, row 420, and col. 5, lines 14-32), and
when at least one of the numerical values of the first score of the two or more preference tags in the one pattern of combined preference tag assigned to the one item of broadcast content is the second value, assign the second value as the second score to the one pattern of combined preference tag (Gutta; when a combination would include for instance a DEFAULT and TIME<=9:30AM attributes/tags, the score/value would be 0% or 2.0%; Fig. 4, rows 420 and 423, and col. 5, lines 14-32), and assign a numerical value as the second score to each of the single preference tags, the numerical value being a numerical value assigned as the first score to a corresponding preference tag (Gutta; first, score/value can be assigned, such as TITLE having assigned score/value of 100.0% and STATION_CALL_SIGN having assigned score/value of 20.6%; Fig. 4, rows 405-419, and col. 5, lines 14-32).
Regarding claim 4, Gutta in view of Garcia Navarro, Sayyadi-Harikandehei, and Dasgupta discloses for one item of broadcast content, the at least one first processor (Gutta; again with at least processor; col. 4, lines 6-12, and Fig. 1) is further configured to:
assign, as the first score, a numerical value between a first value and a third value to a preference tag assigned to the one item of broadcast content among the plurality of preference tags, the third value being different from the first value, the numerical value corresponding to a relevance between the one item of broadcast content and the preference tag (Gutta; a particular, i.e. first, score/value can be assigned which is in a range between a first and third value/score, such as TITLE having assigned score/value of 100.0% and STATION_CALL_SIGN having assigned score/value of 20.6%, and wherein for satisfying rule/preference, i.e. relevance; Fig. 4, rows 405-419, and col. 5, lines 14-32), and
assign a second value as the first score to a preference tag that is not assigned to the one item of broadcast content among the plurality of preference tags, the second value being a numerical value that is not between the first value and the third value (Gutta; a particular, i.e. second, score/value can be assigned which is outside of the range between the first and third, such as TIME<=9:30AM and/or DEFAULT, which is not assigned to content with other attributes, and having assigned score/value of 2.0% and/or 0%; Fig. 4, row 420, and col. 5, lines 14-32).
Regarding claim 5, Gutta in view of Garcia Navarro, Sayyadi-Harikandehei, and Dasgupta discloses for the one item of broadcast content, the at least one first processor (Gutta; again with at least processor; col. 4, lines 6-12, and Fig. 1) is further configured to:
assign, when each of the numerical values of the first score assigned to the two or more preference tags in one pattern of combined preference tag among the plurality of combined preference tags is not the second value, assign, as the second score, a smallest numerical value among the numerical values of the first score to the one pattern of combined preference tag (Gutta; when the combined attributes/tags do not include the attribute/tag with the second/low score/value, i.e. such as TIME<=9:30AM and/or DEFAULT of 2.0% and/or 0%, then the system can assign another score/value based on the combination, which can include a smallest value based on the particular combination of attributes, i.e. STATION_CALL_SIGN & TIME combination, which does not include the TIME<=9:30AM and/or DEFAULT attributes/tags, can have smallest value of 79.4% be assigned for instance; Fig. 4, rows 406-412, 420 and 423, and col. 5, lines 14-32), and assign the second value as the second score to each of single preference tags among the plurality of single preference tags, each of the single preference tags being one of the two or more preference tags in the one pattern of combined preference tag solely assigned to the one item of broadcast content (Gutta; for individual attributes/tags not included in the combination, the second/low score/value will be assigned, i.e. such as TIME<=9:30AM and/or DEFAULT of 2.0% and/or 0%; Fig. 4, rows 420 and 423, and col. 5, lines 14-32), and
when at least one of the numerical values of the first score of the two or more preference tags in the one pattern of combined preference tag assigned to the one item of broadcast content is the second value, assign the second value as the second score to the one pattern of combined preference tag (Gutta; when a combination would include for instance a DEFAULT and TIME<=9:30AM attributes/tags, the score/value would be 0% or 2.0%; Fig. 4, rows 420 and 423), and assign a numerical value as the second score to each of the single preference tags, the numerical value being a numerical value assigned as the first score to a corresponding preference tag (Gutta; first, score/value can be assigned, such as TITLE having assigned score/value of 100.0% and STATION_CALL_SIGN having assigned score/value of 20.6%; Fig. 4, rows 405-419, and col. 5, lines 14-32).
Claim 7, which discloses an information processing method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
transmitting to a television receiver (Garcia Navarro; data/content transmitted to receiver; page 2, paragraph 25, and page 3, paragraph 36, and page 5, paragraph 44); and
decoding, by the television receiver and based on the preference information, a content received by the television receiver, and displaying the content on a display of the television receive[r] (Garcia Navarro; content receiver to process the signals for sending to display device(s); page 3, paragraphs 33-34, and wherein for decoding the signals as well; pages 3-4, paragraph 37, and based on preference(s); page 7, paragraph 61, and page 8, paragraph 80, and Gutta; display based on preferences/recommendation(s); col. 5, lines 44-65).
Claim 8, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for use in a computer, the recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program for causing the computer program for causing one or more processors to execute (Garcia Navarro; including non-transitory media with computer/processor executable instructions; page 2, paragraph 31, and page 4, paragraph 38, and page 5, paragraphs 47-48, and see claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Gutta in view of Garcia Navarro, Sayyadi-Harikandehei, and Dasgupta discloses one or more second memories (Garcia Navarro; can include multiple memory components for storing; page 4, paragraph 38); and
at least one second processor coupled to at least one of the one or more memories (Garcia Navarro; can include multiple processor(s); page 3, paragraph 33, and page 4, paragraph 38, and page 6, paragraph 52) and configured to:
select one or more items of broadcast content to be presented to the user, based on the preference information outputted from the information processing device and calculate an evaluation level that is based on each of the one or more items of broadcast content selected and the preference information (Gutta; system can determine matching programming, and can determine score/level of preference for that particular programming; col. 5, lines 14-27, and col. 6, lines 13-22, and Garcia Navarro; matching programming/content based on the preference(s); pages 7-8, paragraphs 68-71, and with level of match/preference associated to the programming; page 8, paragraph 71, and with received/outputted preference information; page 6, paragraph 55); and
generate an image including, along with the one or more items of broadcast content selected, information about details of each of the one or more items of broadcast content, the evaluation level calculated for the broadcast content, and tag information that matches the preference information of the user, the tag information including one or more tags among (i) the plurality of preference tags, (ii) the plurality of combined preference tags, and (iii) the plurality of single preference tags (Gutta; system can display image/graphical EPG that includes the recommended programming along with programming details such as titles/timing information, attribute(s)/tag(s) information relating to that programming, and evaluation level/score information indicating the level of preference; Figs. 6A-6C, and col. 6, lines 23-58, and Garcia Navarro; output/display of recommendations based on the preference(s); page 7, paragraph 62, and Fig. 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm ET.
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, BENJAMIN BRUCKART can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights