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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 27 July 2026 and the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 21 April 2026.
This office action is made Final.
Claims 1 and 12 have been amended.
Claims 6 and 17 have been cancelled.
All rejections as presented in the previous office action have been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
Claims 1-5, 7-16, 18-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure remains objected to because it involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims and/or written like a claim. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 11-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Chen et al (CN111680993A, pub. 9/18/2020)(Cited on IDS filed on 9/4/2024) in further view of Bakre, “How to use Picture-in-Picture Mode video calling in WhatsApp [Android Oreo Guide]”, 10/7/2017, 4 pages) in further view of Zou et al (US20230094558, EFD 7/20/2020) (Examiner's Note: An English machine translation of CN111680993A provided by the EPO was previously provided. All references to paragraph numbers associated with Chen et al disclosed in the rejection(s) below refer to the EPO’s English translation copy provided by the Examiner)
As per independent claim 1, Chen et al discloses a method comprising:
displaying a first interface, wherein the first interface is a call screen; (FIG 2; 0083: video conferencing among terminals; shows the interface of the video conference)
displaying first prompt information on the first interface following receiving information about a first red packet, wherein the first prompt information provides a prompt to open the first red packet; and (FIG 2, 2023a; 0083, 0085: appears in response to selecting icon 2022)
displaying opening detail information of the first red packet on the first interface following an input for the first prompt information. (FIG 2, 2023b; 0087: discloses details of the red envelope/packet)
displaying second prompt information on the first interface following receiving information about a second red packet, wherein the second prompt information provides a prompt to open the second red packet (0135: discloses the display of a first red packet and receiving a notification of a new (second) red packet. Clicking on the notification loads the display of the second red packet)
However, the cited art fails to specifically discloses wherein the first interface comprises a minimize control; displaying a floating window of the first interface and … following an input to the minimize control, wherein the second interface is a text message interface. However, Bakre discloses the ability to minimize the current video call using a “minimize” feature which results in the video call being a floating window and displays another interface below the video call which is a chat/text message interface. When the video chat is in full screen, the user selects the back button which results in the video chat becoming a floating window and a chat interface under the video call being displayed (pg 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with picture in picture video calling feature described by Bakre since it would have provided the benefit of easily do any other tasks while having a video call with your friends like shopping or anything else. (pg2)
However, the cited art further fails to discloses displaying third prompt information on a second interface, the third prompt information provides a prompt to open the second red packet; and displaying opening detail information of the second red packet on the second interface and the floating window following an input for the second prompt information or for the third prompt information. However, Zou et al discloses prompt information discloses in the text message interface. (FIG 3) Following input that includes on the prompt information, information about that the user has received the red envelope is displayed in the text interface and also a form of floating window (pop-up interface) displaying the opened red packet. (0037; FIG 3) FIG 3 shows “you’ve received the red envelope” in the pop-up interface and in the text interface after selecting of a prompt in the text interface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art the cited feature(s) by Zou et al since it would have provided the benefit of develop a method for receiving and transmitting the virtual item packet that provides consistent and accurate determination outcome based on natural language processing on message contents. (0005)
Thus, in conjunction with Chen et al, the combination teaches displaying a floating window of the first interface and third prompt information on a second interface following an input to the minimize control, wherein the second interface is a text message interface, and the third prompt information provides a prompt to open the second red packet; and displaying opening detail information of the second red packet on the second interface and the floating window following an input for the second prompt information or for the third prompt information.
As per dependent claim 2, Chen et al discloses wherein the first prompt information comprises a red packet opening window including a red packet opening control; (FIG 2, 2023a; 0087)
and displaying opening detail information of the first red packet on the first interface comprises: displaying the opening detail information of the first red packet on the first interface following an input to the red packet opening control. (0087; FIG 2, 2023b in response to the control pressed in (FIG 2, 2023a))
As per dependent claim 3, Chen et al discloses wherein before the displaying first prompt information on the first interface, the method further comprising: displaying a red packet icon on the first interface following receiving the information about the first red packet; and displaying the red packet opening window on the first interface in response to an input for the red packet icon. (FIG 2; 0083, 0086, 0091: red packet icon is displayed in response to receiving a red packet)
As per dependent claim 8, Chen et al discloses wherein the opening detail information of the first red packet comprises opening detail information of the first red packet by a first account, wherein the first account is a logged-in account on the electronic device. (0087, 0170, 0172: participants of the video conference are associated with an account. In order for the participant to have received the red packet, they would have to be logged in as explained in 0172)
As per dependent claim 11, Chen et al discloses wherein the opening detail information of the first red packet comprises information about an opened amount of the first red packet. (FIG 2, 2023b; 0087)
As per independent claim 12, Claim 12 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Chen et al discloses a processor and a memory. (0234)
As per dependent claims 13-14 and 19, Claims 13-14, and 19 recites similar limitations as in Claims 2-3 and 8 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chen et al in further view of Bakre in further view of Zou et al in further view of Lin et al (US20230124461, EFD 6/15/2020)
As per dependent claim 4, Chen et al discloses wherein displaying a red packet icon on the first interface comprises: displaying the red packet opening window on the first interface following receiving the information about the first red packet, (0083, 0086)wherein the red packet opening window comprises a window closing control (FIG 9, 9012: close/cancel option). However, Chen et al fails to disclose displaying the red packet icon on the first interface following an input to the window closing control. However, Lin et al displaying the red packet icon on the first interface following an input to the window closing control. (FIG 4; 0080: discloses hitting the exit control that removes a form a red envelope opening window that results in a red packet icon being displayed to the side)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with Lin et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of improving user interaction experience by providing a prominent indicator that allows for the user to come back to the red envelope at a later time.
As per dependent claim 15, Claim 15 recites similar limitations as in Claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chen et al in further view of Bakre in further view of Zou et al in further view of Gao et al (US20190163529, 2019)
As per dependent claim 5, Chen et al appears to disclose the first prompt information comprises a bullet comment (Note: the term “bullet comment” is undefined and the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied; Therefore, under BRI, FIG 2, 2026 appears to show image comprising text that when selected, opens the red packet); however, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the first prompt information comprises a bullet comment; the displaying opening detail information of the first red packet on the first interface comprises: displaying the opening detail information of the first red packet on the first interface following an input for the bullet comment. However, Gao et al discloses selecting text “Open red packet” within a red packet window to open the red packet and display opening detail information of the red packet. (FIG 7; 0084, 0108) The displayed text “Open red packet” overlaying the icon image is a form of a bullet comment displayed within the interface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the selectable text to open a red packet described by Gao et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of mimicking the physical action of opening an envelope, offering a sense of excitement and ritual that "instant" deposit methods lack.
As per dependent claim 16, Claim 16 recites similar limitations as in Claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chen et al in further view of Bakre in further view of Zou et al in further view of Zhang (CN109769069A, 2019) (Examiner's Note: An English machine translation of CN109769069A provided by the EPO is attached with this Office Action. All references to paragraph numbers associated with Chen et al et al disclosed in the rejection(s) below refer to the EPO’s English translation copy provided by the Examiner)
As per dependent claim 7, Chen et al discloses receiving notifications of received red packets (0135) the cited art fails to specifically disclose sending, by the electronic device in response to receiving the information about the first red packet, fourth prompt information to a device associated with the electronic device, wherein the fourth prompt information indicates that the electronic device has received the information about the red packet. However, Zhang et al discloses controlling the wearable device to establish a communication connection with a mobile terminal; receiving information of a first event transmitted by the mobile terminal, wherein the first event comprises a missed call and/or an unviewed notification message; displaying information of the first event on a display screen of the wearable device (equivalent to an electronic device sending fourth alert information to a device associated with the
electronic device). (0008-0011, 0049,0059) In other words, unread notification messages are mirrored to the associated connected smartwatch to be viewed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with Zhang since it would have provided the benefit of convenient for the user by the wearable device to know the information of the mobile terminal, so as to remind the user timely processing for the first event and it enriches the functions of the wearable device, it can effectively enhance the user experience. (0038) Thus, the combination of Chen et al and Zhang et al would allow the notification of received red packets be displayed on the wearable device as described by Zhang et al.
As per dependent claim 18, Claim 18 recites similar limitations as in Claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chen et al in further view of Bakre in further view of Zou et al in further view of WebNots (“How to Send Red Packet in WeChat App?”, 9/30/2018, 9 pages)
As per dependent claim 9, Chen et al discloses the account that sent the red packet (FIG 2; 2023a); however, fails to specifically disclose displaying fifth prompt information on the first interface, wherein the fifth prompt information indicates opening detail information of the first red packet by a second account, wherein the second account is a logged-in account on another electronic device on which the first red packet is opened. However, WebNots discloses displaying a notification in a chat interface when a recipient has open a received red packet. (pg 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the notification feature described by WebNots since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of providing instant confirmation of receipt, allowing you to see who claimed it.
As per dependent claim 20, Claim 20 recites similar limitations as in Claim 9 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chen et al in further view of Bakre in further view of Zou et al in further view of Jia (CN111752429A, 10/9/2020) (Examiner's Note: An English machine translation of CN111752429A provided by the EPO is attached with this Office Action. All references to paragraph numbers associated with Jia disclosed in the rejection(s) below refer to the EPO’s English translation copy provided by the Examiner)
As per dependent claim 10, the cited art fails to specifically disclose displaying sixth prompt information on the first interface, wherein the sixth prompt information indicates information about an account with a highest opened amount of the first red packet. However, Jia disclose each member of the group grabs the red envelope and determines which member grabbed the largest amount from the envelope. The member with the largest grabbed amount is displayed. (0092, 0094-0096)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with Jia since it would have provided the benefit of eliminating the need to open the electronic red envelopes, simplifying the user experience and improving user interaction. (0020)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-12, in regards to amended claims 1 and 12 which now include the limitations of Claims 6 and 17, in summary, Applicant argues that the combination of Chen, Bakre, and Zou fails to teach the amended claim 1 and 12, particular the subject matter “displaying a floating window of the first interface and third prompt information on a second interface following an input to the minimize control, wherein the second interface is a text message interface, and the third prompt information provides a prompt to open the second red packet; and displaying opening detail information of the second red packet on the second interface and the floating window following an input for the second prompt information or for the third prompt information”. (Argument A) First, Applicant argues the proposed combination improperly assembles three unrelated references through hindsight reconstruction using Applicant's own disclosure as a roadmap. Applicant states the only apparent reason for combining a WhatsApp video-calling tutorial with a Chinese video-conferencing red packet system and an NLP-based chat red packet system is impermissible hindsight derived from Applicant's own disclosure. (Argument B) Second, Applicant argues that Bakre is merely a consumer tutorial describing WhatsApp's picture-in-picture video calling feature and contains no teaching whatsoever regarding red packet functionality. In addition, Applicant argues the motivation for combining Bakre is entirely unrelated to the subject matter and specific recitation of each of independent claims 1 and 12 pertaining to red packet handling on a call screen. (Argument C) Finally, Applicant argues that Zou discloses red packets in a text or chat message context using natural language processing topic matching, not in a call-screen or floating-window scenario. In other words, Zou's "pop-up interface" displaying "you've received the red envelope" is not a floating window of a call screen as claimed, but rather a transient notification within a chat interface. Thus, Applicant argues the cited art does not teach the limitations and requests withdrawal of the rejection. However, the Examiner disagrees.
In response to Argument B, the Examiner respectfully states In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Chen and Bakre with deal video calling and the manipulating of GUI windows/objects such generating windows in response to a user selection. For example, both references disclose a new window is displayed in response to the selection of a GUI object control. (See Chen, FIG 2 and Bakre page 2) Thus, the picture in picture mode display of Bakre is similar to the GUI interface display of FIG 2 of Chen. Thus, Chen and Bakre are combinable since they share a similar field of endeavor. Furthermore, the Bakre reference does not prevent the application of this functionality from being used in red packet interfaces since Bakre clearly states that the user can “easily do any other tasks” while the video call window is displayed such as “shopping or anything else” Since Bakre allows any other tasks or anything else being perform while on a video call, it does not prevent red packet handling from being performed. In addition, the Examiner respectfully states "the teachings relied upon were repeated in a number of references further strengthens the conclusion of obviousness." Kansas Jack, Inc. v. Kuhn, 719 F.2d 1144, 1150 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In addition, the motivation used for the combination of Bakre with Chen was found Bakre itself and meets the requirements of 35 USC 103 and established case law as stated above. Thus, the Examiner has provided rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness as required under KSR. In other words, Bakre’s motivation is applicable to the combination of the cited art.
In response to Argument C, in summary, the Examiner respectfully states based on the arguments provided by the Applicant in respect to claimed features in the argued claim limitation(s), the Examiner respectfully submits that the Applicant states Zou et al does not teach the limitations by merely summarizing the Zou et al reference and merely concludes that Zou et al does not teach the limitation(s). Applicant does not disclose how the claim language of the argued claim limitations are different from the teachings of Zou et al by describing the differences that involve any supporting evidence from the specification stating or describing the limitation, or how Zou et al is specifically different from Applicant’s invention. Applicant merely argues that Zou et al does not teach the argued limitation without any explanation or describing how the claim language and invention is performed regarding the claimed subject matter. In other words, Applicant argues does not argue how the cited sections (i.e. FIG. 3; 0037) of Zou et al does not teach the argued limitations based on the current language. Thus, Applicant’s arguments fail to disclose how the cited art is silent or doesn't teach on the limitation since the Applicant does not fully describe the differences.
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully states that the language of the argued subject matter is broad on a number of elements, in particular with the element “floating window”. The language merely states “displaying a floating window of the first interface” and “displaying opening detail information of the second red packet on…the floating window”. The Examiner respectfully states that the term “floating window” is not defined, explained or limited in anyway. In other words, the language is silent on how to properly view a floating window within Applicant’s claimed invention. In addition, Applicant’s specification does not provide a definitive definition of a floating window. The claimed subject matter and Applicant’s specification do not clearly define what a floating window is. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) is applied. Under BRI, within GUI interfaces, a floating window is merely a window that has a higher z-order that overlaps one or more different GUIs object having a lower z-order (e.g. first window) within the GUI interface. Thus, the window, with the higher z-order, “floats” above other objects on the GUI interface. Therefore, FIG 3 of Zou clearly shows a pop-up interface (FIG 3(2-3) that is displayed that overlaps the chat window (originally shown in FIG 3(1)). Thus, Zou clearly shows a form of a floating window in the broadest reasonable interpretation since one of a skilled artisan can see that the pop-up interface disclosing red packet/envelope information is overlapping the chat window.
Furthermore, the Examiner refers the Applicant to MPEP 904.01 (b) that states "All subject matter that is the equivalent of the subject matter as defined in the claim, even though specifically different from the definition in the claim, must be considered unless expressly excluded by the claimed subject matter." In other words, while the prior art cited may not explicitly use the same terminology as disclosed in the claim limitations, it doesn't mean the art doesn't teach it and can't be considered to reject Applicant’s claimed invention. Thus, examiner submits that what is taught by the references of the cited art is considered functionally equivalent to that which is claimed discussed below.
Thus, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, Chen et al disclose displaying second prompt information on the first interface following receiving information about a second red packet, wherein the second prompt information provides a prompt to open the second red packet (0135: discloses the display of a first red packet and receiving a notification of a new (second) red packet. Clicking on the notification loads the display of the second red packet)
However, the cited art fails to specifically discloses wherein the first interface comprises a minimize control; displaying a floating window of the first interface and … following an input to the minimize control, wherein the second interface is a text message interface. However, Bakre discloses the ability to minimize the current video call using a “minimize” feature which results in the video call being a floating window and displays another interface below the video call which is a chat/text message interface. When the video chat is in full screen, the user selects the back button which results in the video chat becoming a floating window and a chat interface under the video call being displayed (pg 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with picture in picture video calling feature described by Bakre since it would have provided the benefit of easily do any other tasks while having a video call with your friends like shopping or anything else. (pg2)
However, the cited art further fails to discloses displaying third prompt information on a second interface, the third prompt information provides a prompt to open the second red packet; and displaying opening detail information of the second red packet on the second interface and the floating window following an input for the second prompt information or for the third prompt information. However, Zou et al discloses prompt information discloses in the text message interface. (FIG 3) Following input that includes on the prompt information, information about that the user has received the red envelope is displayed in the text interface and also a form of floating window (pop-up interface) displaying the opened red packet. (0037; FIG 3) FIG 3 shows “you’ve received the red envelope” in the pop-up interface and in the text interface after selecting of a prompt in the text interface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art the cited feature(s) by Zou et al since it would have provided the benefit of develop a method for receiving and transmitting the virtual item packet that provides consistent and accurate determination outcome based on natural language processing on message contents. (0005)
Thus, in conjunction with Chen et al, the combination teaches displaying a floating window of the first interface and third prompt information on a second interface following an input to the minimize control, wherein the second interface is a text message interface, and the third prompt information provides a prompt to open the second red packet; and displaying opening detail information of the second red packet on the second interface and the floating window following an input for the second prompt information or for the third prompt information.
Thus, the cited art teaches the argued subject matter of claims 1 and 12 argued in argument C and in also argument B.
In regards to Argument A, In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grudnitski et al – US20030027121 – discloses a floating window is also known as a pop-window.
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.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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. Please refer to MPEP 713.09 for scheduling interviews after the mailing of this office action.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights