Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Art Rejections
Anticipation
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 10,599,390 (patented 24 March 2020) (“Brahmbhatt”).
Claim 1 is drawn to “a computing system.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed system and the Brahmbhatt reference.
Claim 1
The Brahmbhatt Reference
“1. A computing system comprising:
The Brahmbhatt reference similarly describes an environment 100 that includes a system of computers, including interactive device 104 and service providers 108a, 108b, 108c. Brahmbhatt at col. 4 ll. 34–46, col. 7 ll. 4–21, FIGs.1, 2.
“at least one processor; and
“at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to:
Brahmbhatt’s computers include a corresponding processor (e.g., 204) and non-transitory computer-readable medium (e.g., 206) programmed with instructions (e.g., 214) that are executed by the processor. Id. at col. 7 ll. 4–21, col. 8 ll. 39–48, col. 9 ll. 10–31, FIGs.2, 3.
“determine a context in which media content is to be played back by a user of a media playback service account, wherein the context comprises one of: (i) a personal context in which media content is provided to the user alone; or (ii) a shared context in which media content is provided to the user in presence of at least one additional user; and
Likewise, Brahmbhatt’s computers capture contextual data to determine a context for media content play back. Id. at col. 13 ll. 31–64, FIG.4. In particular, Brahmbhatt senses if a user command 109 to play content is being made in the context of a single person setting or in a group setting with multiple people. Id. at col. 13 l. 65 to col. 14 l. 64.
“provide at least one media content recommendation based on the determined context and based on a playback history comprising media items previously played back via the media playback service account;
Brahmbhatt recommends content based on the current contextual setting (i.e., single or group) and based on profiles of at least person involved. Id. For example, Brahmbhatt considers a person’s media content history associated with the person’s account. Id. at col. 6 ll. 37–43, col. 16 ll. 44–51, col. 18 ll. 37–53, col. 19 ll. 4–34, col. 20 ll. 5–21.
“wherein:
“for the personal context, the at least one media content recommendation is based on a first set of media items in the playback history, the first set of media items comprising media items associated with playback of media content in the personal context; and
“for the shared context, the at least one media content recommendation is based on a second set of media items in the playback history, the second set of media items comprising media items associated with playback of media content in the shared context,
“wherein the second set of media items excludes at least one media item included in the first set of media items.”
Brahmbhatt describes recommending content based on a user’s media content history and the current context. Id. In a typical single-person context, content is recommended based simply on the single user’s profile history. Id. at col. 1 ll. 15–28, col. 13 l. 65 to col. 14 l. 14, col. 15 ll. 30–51. However, in a multi-person, group context, content is recommended by weighting the interests of each user in one of several ways. For example, when a group context includes children, a parent’s profile history may be used to make recommendations after having been filtered to remove inappropriate content. Id. at col. 4 ll. 1–16, col. 19 ll. 4–34. In other words, a parent’s profile is consulted in both single and group contexts. In the single context, recommendations are made from a first set that includes all items in a user’s history since all those items are approved for use in a single-person context. Id. But in the group context, the parent’s content history is filtered to produce a subset that excludes at least one media item that would otherwise be considered for recommendation when the parent requests content outside the presence of his children. Id. Thus, in the group context, recommendations are selected from a set of items that is associated with a shared context because those items are approved for playback in the group/shared context. Id.
Table 1
For the foregoing reasons, the Brahmbhatt reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein determining the context comprises detecting a presence of one or more user devices within a proximity of at least one device via which media content is to be played back.”
Brahmbhatt describes determining a group context by detecting the presence of multiple user devices within a proximity of device 104. Brahmbhatt at col. 9 l. 62 to col. 10 l. 15, col. 13 ll. 31–64, col. 23 ll. 13–36. For the foregoing reasons, the Brahmbhatt reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein determining the context comprises determining a characteristic of one or more devices via which media content is to be played back.”
Brahmbhatt describes determining a group context based on the type of the interactive device 104. Brahmbhatt at col. 3 ll. 3–22. For example, if device 104 is a smart TV, it is assumed that it is being used in a group context instead of in an individual mode as would be typical of a smartphone. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the Brahmbhatt reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein determining the context comprises determining a characteristic of at least one room in which media content is to be played back.”
Brahmbhatt considers the lighting in the room to determine if the context is a single or group context. Brahmbhatt at col. 13 l. 65 to col. 14 l. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the Brahmbhatt reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein determining the context comprises determining an activity that the user is about to perform.”
Brahmbhatt decides between an individual and group context based on the activity, such as throwing a birthday party. Brahmbhatt at col. 10 l. 62 to col. 11 l. 8, col. 11 ll. 19–36. For the foregoing reasons, the Brahmbhatt reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein providing the at least one media content recommendation comprises playing back, via at least one playback device associated with the media playback service account, at least one media item corresponding to the at least one media content recommendation.”
Similarly, Brahmbhatt describes playing a recommended piece of content 110 via interactive device 104, which might be a mobile device or a smart TV. Brahmbhatt at col. 3 ll. 3–22, col. 7 ll. 13–21, col. 8 ll. 49–67, col. 13 ll. 23–30, col. 14 ll. 46–64, FIG.2. For the foregoing reasons, the Brahmbhatt reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein providing the at least one media content recommendation comprises displaying, via a graphical display associated with the media playback service account, at least one graphical representation corresponding to the at least one media content recommendation.”
Similarly, Brahmbhatt describes displaying graphical representations of a recommended piece of content on a display associated with device 104. Brahmbhatt at col. 24 ll. 9–24. For the foregoing reasons, the Brahmbhatt reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 8 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein: the first set of media items comprises any one or more of the media items in the playback history; and
“the second set of media items comprises any one or more of a subset of media items in the playback history, wherein the subset of media items excludes at least one media item in the playback history.”
Brahmbhatt describes recommending content based on a user’s media content history. Id. In a typical single-person context, content is recommended based simply on the single user’s profile history. Id. at col. 1 ll. 15–28, col. 13 l. 65 to col. 14 l. 14, col. 15 ll. 30–51. However, in a multi-person, group context, content is recommended by weighting the interests of each user in one of several ways. For example, when a group includes children, a parent’s profile history may be used to make recommendations after having been filtered to remove inappropriate content. Id. at col. 4 ll. 1–16, col. 19 ll. 4–34. In other words, a parent’s profile is consulted in both single and group contexts, but in the group context, the parent’s content history is filtered so that it excludes at least one media item that would otherwise be considered for recommendation when the parent requests content outside the presence of his children. Id. Thus, the pool, or second set, of media items used in Brahmbhatt’s group context is a subset of media items in the parent’s playback history and excludes at least one media item in the parent’s history. For the foregoing reasons, the Brahmbhatt reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 9 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the first set of media items comprises the second set of media items.”
Brahmbhatt describes recommending content based on a user’s media content history. Id. In a typical single-person context, content is recommended based simply on the single user’s profile history. Id. at col. 1 ll. 15–28, col. 13 l. 65 to col. 14 l. 14, col. 15 ll. 30–51. However, in a multi-person, group context, content is recommended by weighting the interests of each user in one of several ways. For example, when a group includes children, a parent’s profile history may be used to make recommendations after having been filtered to remove inappropriate content. Id. at col. 4 ll. 1–16, col. 19 ll. 4–34. In other words, a parent’s profile is consulted in both single and group contexts, but in the group context, the parent’s content history is filtered so that it excludes at least one media item that would otherwise be considered for recommendation when the parent requests content outside the presence of his children. Id. Thus, the pool, or first set, of media items used in Brahmbhatt’s individual context includes all the media items in the parent’s playback history and all the media items used in the group context when the parent’s playback history is used. For the foregoing reasons, the Brahmbhatt reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein: the first set of media items corresponds to a first preferences profile associated with the media playback service account; and
“the second set of media items corresponds to a second preferences profile associated with the media playback service account.”
Similarly, Brahmbhatt describes the use of different combinations of preference profiles in an individual context and a group context. Brahmbhatt at col. 4 ll. 1–16, col. 19 ll. 4–34. Specifically, in an individual context, a parent’s profile is used. Id. In a group context involving children, another profile is used that prioritizes age appropriateness. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the Brahmbhatt reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 11 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein: the first set of media items corresponds to media items associated with a first playback mode available to the media playback service account; and
“the second set of media items corresponds to media items associated with a second playback mode available to the media playback service account.”
Similarly, Brahmbhatt describes the use of different sets of media items in an individual context and a group context. Brahmbhatt at col. 4 ll. 1–16, col. 19 ll. 4–34. Specifically, in an individual context, a parent’s profile is used to access a wide range of content. Id. In a group context involving children, a subset of content is used to account for age appropriateness. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the Brahmbhatt reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 12 depends on claim 11, and further requires the following:
“wherein: the first playback mode corresponds to a private playback mode; and
“the second playback mode corresponds to a shared playback mode.”
Similarly, Brahmbhatt describes playing back content in both a individual, or private, context and in a group, or shared, context. Brahmbhatt at col. 4 ll. 1–16, col. 19 ll. 4–34. For the foregoing reasons, the Brahmbhatt reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 13 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein: determining the context comprises determining the context via a computing system associated with the media playback service account; and
“providing the at least one media content recommendation comprises providing
Brahmbhatt describes interactive device 104 that has sensors to determine a context and output devices to reproduce recommendations. Brahmbhatt at col. 6 l. 51 to col. 7 l. 3, col. 7 l. 55 to col. 8 l. 20, col. 24 ll. 9–13, FIGs.1, 2. For the foregoing reasons, the Brahmbhatt reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 14 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein: determining the context comprises determining the context via a first computing system associated with the media playback service account; and
“providing the at least one media content recommendation comprises providing
“wherein the first computing system is different and independent from the second computing system.”
Brahmbhatt describes interactive device 104 that has sensors to determine a context and output devices to reproduce recommendations. Brahmbhatt at col. 6 l. 44 to col. 7 l. 3, col. 7 l. 55 to col. 8 l. 20, col. 24 ll. 9–13, FIGs.1, 2. Brahmbhatt also describes a server 108 that provides recommendations through network streaming. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the Brahmbhatt reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 15 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein: determining the context comprises determining the context via a media playback system associated with the media playback service account; and
“providing the at least one media content recommendation comprises providing
Brahmbhatt describes interactive device 104 (e.g., a media playback system) that has sensors to determine a context and output devices to reproduce recommendations. Brahmbhatt at col. 3 ll. 3–22, col. 6 l. 44 to col. 7 l. 3, col. 7 l. 55 to col. 8 l. 20, col. 24 ll. 9–13, FIGs.1, 2. Brahmbhatt also describes a server 108 that provides recommendations through network streaming. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the Brahmbhatt reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 16 depends on claim 15, and further requires the following:
“wherein determining the context comprises the streaming service receiving, from the media playback system, context data corresponding to the context.”
Similarly, Brahmbhatt describes device 104 providing context information to streaming servers 108. Brahmbhatt at col. 5 l. 59 to col. 6 l. 18, FIG.1. For the foregoing reasons, the Brahmbhatt reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 17 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein determining the context comprises determining the context via one or more devices of a media playback system associated with the media playback service account.”
Claim 18 depends on claim 17, and further requires the following:
“wherein the one or more devices comprise one or more of: a controller device of the media playback system, a playback device of the media playback system, or a server associated with the media playback system.”
Claims 17 and 18 are both drawn to the types of devices used to determine the context. Similarly, Brahmbhatt describes device 104 providing context information to streaming servers 108. Brahmbhatt at col. 5 l. 59 to col. 6 l. 18, FIG.1. Streaming servers 108 are associated with a user’s account. Id. at col. 9 l. 10 to col. 10 l. 52, FIG.3. For the foregoing reasons, the Brahmbhatt reference anticipates all limitations of the claims.
Claim 19 is drawn to “a computer-implemented method.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed system and the Brahmbhatt reference.
Claim 19
The Brahmbhatt Reference
“19. A computer-implemented method comprising:
The Brahmbhatt reference similarly describes an environment 100 that includes a system of computers, including interactive device 104 and service providers 108a, 108b, 108c. Brahmbhatt at col. 4 ll. 34–46, col. 7 ll. 4–21, FIGs.1, 2. Brahmbhatt’s computers include a corresponding processor (e.g., 204) and non-transitory computer-readable medium (e.g., 206) programmed with instructions (e.g., 214) that are executed by the processor. Id. at col. 7 ll. 4–21, col. 8 ll. 39–48, col. 9 ll. 10–31, FIGs.2, 3.
“determining a context in which media content is to be played back by a user of a media playback service account, wherein the context comprises one of: (i) a personal context in which media content is provided to the user alone; or (ii) a shared context in which media content is provided to the user in presence of at least one additional user; and
Likewise, Brahmbhatt’s computers capture contextual data to determine a context for media content play back. Id. at col. 13 ll. 31–64, FIG.4. In particular, Brahmbhatt senses if a user command 109 to play content is being made in the context of a single person setting or in a group setting with multiple people. Id. at col. 13 l. 65 to col. 14 l. 64.
“providing at least one media content recommendation based on the determined context and based on a playback history comprising media items previously played back via the media playback service account;
Brahmbhatt recommends content based on the current contextual setting (i.e., single or group) and based on profiles of at least person involved. Id. For example, Brahmbhatt considers a person’s media content history associated with the person’s account. Id. at col. 6 ll. 37–43, col. 16 ll. 44–51, col. 18 ll. 37–53, col. 19 ll. 4–34, col. 20 ll. 5–21.
“wherein:
“for the personal context, the at least one media content recommendation is based on a first set of media items in the playback history, the first set of media items comprising media items associated with playback of media content in the personal context; and
“for the shared context, the at least one media content recommendation is based on a second set of media items in the playback history, the second set of media items comprising media items associated with playback of media content in the shared context,
“wherein the second set of media items excludes at least one media item included in the first set of media items.”
Brahmbhatt describes recommending content based on a user’s media content history and the current context. Id. In a typical single-person context, content is recommended based simply on the single user’s profile history. Id. at col. 1 ll. 15–28, col. 13 l. 65 to col. 14 l. 14, col. 15 ll. 30–51. However, in a multi-person, group context, content is recommended by weighting the interests of each user in one of several ways. For example, when a group context includes children, a parent’s profile history may be used to make recommendations after having been filtered to remove inappropriate content. Id. at col. 4 ll. 1–16, col. 19 ll. 4–34. In other words, a parent’s profile is consulted in both single and group contexts. In the single context, recommendations are made from a first set that includes all items in a user’s history since all those items are approved for use in a single-person context. Id. But in the group context, the parent’s content history is filtered to produce a subset that excludes at least one media item that would otherwise be considered for recommendation when the parent requests content outside the presence of his children. Id. Thus, in the group context, recommendations are selected from a set of items that is associated with a shared context because those items are approved for playback in the group/shared context. Id.
Table 2
For the foregoing reasons, the Brahmbhatt reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 20 is drawn to “a computer-readable media.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed media and the Brahmbhatt reference.
Claim 20
The Brahmbhatt Reference
“20. A computer-readable media comprising one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed at a processor, cause a computer system to perform a method for contextual media content recommendations, the method comprising:
The Brahmbhatt reference similarly describes an environment 100 that includes a system of computers, including interactive device 104 and service providers 108a, 108b, 108c. Brahmbhatt at col. 4 ll. 34–46, col. 7 ll. 4–21, FIGs.1, 2. Brahmbhatt’s computers include a corresponding processor (e.g., 204) and non-transitory computer-readable medium (e.g., 206) programmed with instructions (e.g., 214) that are executed by the processor. Id. at col. 7 ll. 4–21, col. 8 ll. 39–48, col. 9 ll. 10–31, FIGs.2, 3.
“determining a context in which media content is to be played back by a user of a media playback service account, wherein the context comprises one of: (i) a personal context in which media content is provided to the user alone; or (ii) a shared context in which media content is provided to the user in presence of at least one additional user; and
Likewise, Brahmbhatt’s computers capture contextual data to determine a context for media content play back. Id. at col. 13 ll. 31–64, FIG.4. In particular, Brahmbhatt senses if a user command 109 to play content is being made in the context of a single person setting or in a group setting with multiple people. Id. at col. 13 l. 65 to col. 14 l. 64.
“providing at least one media content recommendation based on the determined context and based on a playback history comprising media items previously played back via the media playback service account;
Brahmbhatt recommends content based on the current contextual setting (i.e., single or group) and based on profiles of at least person involved. Id. For example, Brahmbhatt considers a person’s media content history associated with the person’s account. Id. at col. 6 ll. 37–43, col. 16 ll. 44–51, col. 18 ll. 37–53, col. 19 ll. 4–34, col. 20 ll. 5–21.
“wherein:
“for the personal context, the at least one media content recommendation is based on a first set of media items in the playback history, the first set of media items comprising media items associated with playback of media content in the personal context; and
“for the shared context, the at least one media content recommendation is based on a second set of media items in the playback history, the second set of media items comprising media items associated with playback of media content in the shared context,
“wherein the second set of media items excludes at least one media item included in the first set of media items.”
Brahmbhatt describes recommending content based on a user’s media content history and the current context. Id. In a typical single-person context, content is recommended based simply on the single user’s profile history. Id. at col. 1 ll. 15–28, col. 13 l. 65 to col. 14 l. 14, col. 15 ll. 30–51. However, in a multi-person, group context, content is recommended by weighting the interests of each user in one of several ways. For example, when a group context includes children, a parent’s profile history may be used to make recommendations after having been filtered to remove inappropriate content. Id. at col. 4 ll. 1–16, col. 19 ll. 4–34. In other words, a parent’s profile is consulted in both single and group contexts. In the single context, recommendations are made from a first set that includes all items in a user’s history since all those items are approved for use in a single-person context. Id. But in the group context, the parent’s content history is filtered to produce a subset that excludes at least one media item that would otherwise be considered for recommendation when the parent requests content outside the presence of his children. Id. Thus, in the group context, recommendations are selected from a set of items that is associated with a shared context because those items are approved for playback in the group/shared context. Id.
Table 3
For the foregoing reasons, the Brahmbhatt reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–20 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Additional Citations
The following table lists additional citations that were found during a search in this Application. While this Office action does not rely on these additional references, they are relevant to the subject matter disclosed and claimed. The Examiner advises reviewing these references in preparing a response to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
US 12,443,633
Situational recommendations
US 11,605,117
Displaying recommendations
US 2013/0145385
Makes media recommendations based on being alone or being in a group.
Table 4
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s Reply (21 April 2026) has substantively amended all the claims. This Office action has updated all rejections as appropriate.
Applicant’s Reply at 8–9 includes comments pertaining to the rejections presented in the Non-Final Rejection (22 January 2026) and updated herein. Those comments have been considered, but are not persuasive of any error in the current rejections.
Applicant comments that the amended claims require making recommendations based on distinct subsets of a single playback history. (Reply at 9). Applicant comments that this is different from Brahmbhatt’s filtering of a playback history. This comment is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
The amended claims require making recommendations from a playback history. In a personal context, recommendations are pulled from a first set. The first set includes media items from a history that are also associated with a personal context. In the shared context, recommendations are pulled from a second set. The second set includes media items from the history that are associated with playback of media content in the shared context. Further, the second set excludes at least one item included in the first set. The term “associated with playback of media content” is a broad predicate adjective that requires some type of association between media items in a playback history and either a personal context or a shared context. The claim does not require any specific definition of the association, such as a means or steps for establishing the association.
The claimed association is met by Brahmbhatt's disclosure of filtering. In a personal context, audio from a user's playback history is used in an unrestricted manner. Brahmbhatt at col. 1 ll. 15–28, col. 13 l. 65 to col. 14 l. 14, col. 15 ll. 30–51. In a shared context, however, audio from a user's playback history is filtered (e.g., excluding explicit content). Id. at col. 4 ll. 1–16, col. 19 ll. 4–34. Thus, in a personal context, content recommendations pulled from a user's history are associated with playback of media content in a personal context because all the recommendations are approved for playback in the personal context. In a shared context, content recommendations pulled from a user's history are associated with playback of media content in the shared context because the recommendations have been filtered to conform with rules concerning shared context playback. Thus, there are two different types of associations made between content items in a user's history and both a personal playback context and a shared playback context.
The Examiner advises amending the last “wherein” clause of claim 1 as follows:
“wherein:
“for the personal context, the at least one media content recommendation is based on a first set of media items in the playback history, the first set of media items comprising media items associated with a personal context history listing media items played
“for the shared context, the at least one media content recommendation is based on a second set of media items in the playback history, the second set of media items comprising media items associated with a shared context history listing media items played
These amendments would highlight the disclosed strategy of maintaining two different sub-histories: one history associated with personal context playback and another history associated with shared context playback. The Brahmbhatt reference does not anticipate maintaining two different sub-histories.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
6/12/2026
Prosecution Insights