DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
112th Rejections
112th rejections have been withdrawn based on the amendments.
101 Rejections
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Applicant acknowledges the 28, page response in the current Office Action that addresses Applicant's last remarks on the § 101 rejection. Applicant stands firm on their position and further believes that the foregoing changes to the claims make clear that the claims are directed toward eligible subject matter under § 101. As to the newly recited features, claim 1 now requires specific data extraction (viewing history -- content IDs, time), structured metric generation (acquisition rate, use rate), transformation into a new quantitative value (suitability). This constitutes a concrete data processing pipeline, not a mental process. Furthermore, as to improvements to the functioning of a computer, the claim improves subscription management efficiency and provider evaluation accuracy, and thus, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that the amended limitations do not overcome the 101 rejections.
The amended portions recite:
-“Wherein the suitability for use information is calculated by combining the content acquisition rate information and the use rate information” recites a mental process because human mind can calculate acquisition rate and use rate information by evaluation and judgment of data and/or mathematical concept/calculation.
-“determine recommendation information including at least one of maintaining a subscription, cancelling a subscription, or initiating a new subscription based on the suitability for use information and content provider subscription information” recites a mental process because human mind can determine recommendation information including maintain subscription, cancelling subscription, new subscription by evaluation and judgment of data.
-“wherein the content provider use information includes:
-“content acquisition rate information representing a ratio of content viewed by a user that is provided by each of the at least one content provider” is insignificant extra solution activity as mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and well-understood, routine and convention activities (WURC) see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“and use rate information representing a ratio of time that the user uses each of the at least one content provider” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
The amendments do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not provide any improvement to the technology. Therefore, the claims remain rejected under 101 rejections.
Detailed explanation is provided below in the 101 rejections.
103 Rejections
Applicants’ arguments filed on 04/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14, 16-18 are fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following reasons:
Claim 1:
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a “a content provider recommendation server” and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate content provider use information about each of at least one content provider based on the content preference information received preference information by evaluating and judging the content preference information data. For example, human mind can look at the content preference information and evaluate/judge the information and generate content provider use information.
-“generate suitability for use information for each of the at least one content provider, based on the content provider use information about each of the at least one content provider” recites a mental process because human mind can generate suitability for use information about each of the content provider by evaluating and judging the content provider use information. For example, human mind can look at the content provider use information and evaluate/judge the use information and recommend a content provider to use.
-“wherein the suitability for use information is calculated by combining the content acquisition rate information and the use rate information” recites a mental process because human mind can calculate content acquisition rate and use rate information by evaluation and judgement of data and/or mathematical calculation.
-“determine recommendation information including at least one of maintaining a subscription, cancelling a subscription, or initiating a new subscription based on the suitability for use information and content provider subscription information” recites a mental process because human mind can determine recommendation information based on the suitability for use information by evaluation and judgement of data.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“a communication interface”, “a processor configured to”, “a display device”, “a content provider recommendation server” which are all a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“control the communication interface to receive, from a display device, content preference information” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information' and/or is insignificant extra solution activity as mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“wherein the content provider use information includes: content acquisition rate information representing a ratio of content viewed by a user that is provided by each of the at least one content provider” is insignificant extra solution activity as mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“and use rate information representing a ratio of time that the user uses each of the at least one content provider” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
-“transmit content provider integrated information including, for each of the at least one content provider, the content provider use information and the suitability for use information to the display device through the communication interface” is insignificant extra solution activity as mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“control the communication interface to receive, from a display device, content preference information” is well-understood, routine, conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“wherein the content provider use information includes: content acquisition rate information representing a ratio of content viewed by a user that is provided by each of the at least one content provider” is well-understood, routine, conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“and use rate information representing a ratio of time that the user uses each of the at least one content provider” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
-“transmit content provider integrated information including, for each of the at least one content provider, the content provider use information and the suitability for use information to the display device through the communication interface” is well-understood, routine, conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate the suitability for use information for each of the at least one content provider further based on the content viewing history information and the content provider subscription information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate suitability for use information for each of the content provider based on the content viewing history information and the content provider subscription information by evaluation and judgment of data.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the user content preference information received from the display device includes: content viewing history information and content provider subscription information” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“wherein the user content preference information received from the display device includes: content viewing history information and content provider subscription information” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“a content information database for storing content metadata related to at least one piece of content: and” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“wherein the content metadata includes: information about at least one of a content ID, a content genre, or a content provider” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“a content information database for storing content metadata related to at least one piece of content: and” is WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or "iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
-“wherein the content metadata includes: information about at least one of a content ID, a content genre, or a content provider” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate the content provider use information based on the content viewing history information and the content provider subscription information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate the content provider use information by evaluating and judging the content viewing history information and the content provider subscription information.
Claim 5:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate the content acquisition rate information for each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate content security rate information by evaluating and judging the content viewing history information.
-“and wherein the content acquisition rate information is generated by determining whether each content provider provides content corresponding to content viewed by the user and calculating a ratio thereof” recites a mental process because human mind can generate acquisition rate information by determining whether the content provider provides content corresponding to content viewed by the user and calculating ratio by evaluation and judgment of data.
Claim 6:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate content viewing time information for each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate content viewing time information for each content provider by evaluating and judging the content viewing history information.
Claim 7:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate viewing time information by genre for each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate content viewing time information for each content provider by evaluating and judging the content viewing history information by genre for each content provider.
Claim 8:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate use rate information for each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate user rate information for each content provider by evaluating and judging the content viewing history information.
-“wherein the use rate information is generated based on total viewing time of each of the at least one content provider relative to total viewing time” recites a mental process because human mind can generate total viewing time for each of the content by evaluation and judgement of data.
Claim 9:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate content provider recommendation information for each of the at least one content provider, based on the content provider use information and the content provider subscription information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate content provider recommendation information by evaluating and judging the content provider subscription information.
-“wherein the content provider recommendation information is generated based on the suitability for use information and the content provider subscription information” recites a mental process because human mind can recommendation information is generated based on the suitability information by evaluation and judgement of data.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“and wherein the content provider recommendation information includes the suitability for use information and recommendation information for each of the at least one content provider” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“and wherein the content provider recommendation information includes the suitability for use information and recommendation information for each of the at least one content provider” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate content acquisition rate information for each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate content acquisition rate for each of the at least one content provider based on the viewing history information by evaluating and judging the information included in the content provider viewing history information.
-“generate use rate information for each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate use rate information for the each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information by evaluating and judging the use rate/acquisition information included in the content provider use information.
-“generate the suitability for use information by combining the content acquisition rate information and the use rate information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate the suitability for use information by combining the content acquisition rate information and the use rate information by evaluation and judgement of data.
Claim 11:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“based on the content provider subscription information, determine a content provider of the at least one content provider to which a user has not subscribed” recites a mental process because human mind can determine a content provider which has not subscribed by evaluating and judging the subscription information.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“and obtain the content acquisition rate information of the content provider to which the user has not subscribed as the suitability for use information” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information' (See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“and obtain the content acquisition rate of the content provider to which the user has not subscribed as the suitability for use” is WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“determine a content provider of the at least one content provider to which a user has subscribed based on the content provider subscription information” recites a mental process because human mind can determine a content provider which has subscribed by evaluating and judging the subscription information.
-“generate recommendation information recommending maintenance of subscription if the suitability for use information of the at least one content provider to which the user has subscribed is higher than or equal to a preset standard value” recites a mental process because human mind can generate a recommendation information recommending maintenance of subscription by identifying if the suitability for use of the content provider to which the user has subscribed is higher than or equal to a preset standard value by evaluating and judging the data provided. For example, human mind can evaluate/judge the subscription data and determine if the suitability for use of the content provider is higher than or equal to a preset standard value by a simple mental calculation.
Claim 13:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“determine a content provider of the at least one content provider to which a user has subscribed based on the content provider subscription information”, recites a mental process because human mind can determine a content provider which has subscribed by evaluating and judging the subscription information.
-“generate recommendation information to recommend cancellation of subscription if the suitability for use information of the at least one content provider to which the user has subscribed is less than a preset standard value” recites a mental process because human mind can generate a recommendation to recommend cancellation of subscription if the suitability for user of the content provider to which the user has subscribed is less than a preset standard value by evaluating and judging the data provided. For example, human mind can evaluate/judge the subscription data and determine if the suitability for use of the content provider is less than a preset standard value by a simple mental calculation.
Claim 14:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“determine a content provider among the at least one content provider to which a user has not subscribed based on the content provider subscription information” recites a mental process because human mind can determine a content provider which has not subscribed by evaluating and judging the subscription information.
-“generate recommended information recommending a new subscription if the suitability for use information of the at least one content provider to which the user has not subscribed is higher than the suitability for use information of other content providers among the at least one content provider” recites a mental process because human mind can generate a recommendation recommending a new subscription if the suitability for use for the content provider which the user is not subscribed is higher than the suitability for use of other content providers by evaluating and judging the data provided. For example, human mind can evaluate/judge the subscription data and determine if the suitability for use of the content provider is higher than the suitability for use by a simple mental calculation.
Claim 16:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the content preference information includes content viewing time that the display device views content from all of the at least one content provider” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“wherein the content preference information includes content viewing time that the display device views content from all of the at least one content provider” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the content provider use information includes a current status of a user's use of each of the at least one content provider” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“wherein the content provider use information includes a current status of a user's use of each of the at least one content provider” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“generate the suitability for use information, for each of the at least one content provider, further based on: and a ratio of time that the user views content provided by the respective one of the at least one content provider” recites a mental process because human mind can generate suitability of use information to each content provider based on amount of all content that the user viewed using the content providers and a ration of time that the user views by the content provider by evaluation and judgement of data.
-“generate the suitability for use information for each of the at least one content provider based on content acquisition rate information and use rate information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate the suitability for use information for each of the content provider based on content acquisition rate information and use rate information by evaluation and judgement of data.
Prior Arts Consideration
Prior arts of record Kim et al. (US 2020/0169789) teach viewing histories of content and hit ratios of content in paragraphs [0060, 0081].
Lee teaches (US 2010/0125544) teaches histories of viewing content in paragraphs [0031].
Uchibe et al. (US 2007/0073646) teaches viewing histories of content in paragraphs [0026].
Prior arts of record do not explicitly teach “wherein the content provider use information includes: content acquisition rate information representing a ratio of content viewed by a user that is provided by each of the at least one content provider; and use rate information representing a ratio of time that the user uses each of the at least one content provider, generate suitability for use information for each of the at least one content provider, based on the content provider use information about each of the at least one content provider, wherein the suitability for use information is calculated by combining the content acquisition rate information and the use rate information, determine recommendation information including at least one of maintaining a subscription, cancelling a subscription, or initiating a new subscription based on the suitability for use information and content provider subscription information” as recited in the independent claims.
Conclusions
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 FATIMA P MINA whose telephone number is (571)270-3556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Ann Lo can be reached on 571-272-9767. 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.
/FATIMA P MINA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ALBERT M PHILLIPS, III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights