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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were filed on 2/1/2025 and 8/4/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes the term “disclosure”. 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).
Drawings
The drawings filed 8/9/2024 were accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 16-17 recites the limitation "a first direction" and “the first direction,” referring to the direction between two user interface objects, however it also refers to “the first direction” of the acceleration. One of these should be renamed to resolve the conflicting antecedent basis. Claim 18 depends on claim 17 and does not resolve the conflicting antecedent basis, so it is also rejected for the same reason.
Claim 18 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because it has conflicting limitations with claim 16. Claim 18 claims that the first and second user interface objects are displayed at the same location in the initial manner (claim 18: “the first user interface object is displayed in the initial manner at the same location as the second user interface object”), but claim 16 claims that they are displayed at different locations (claim 16: “the first user interface object is displayed at a first location… while displaying the first user interface object in the initial manner, displaying, via the display, a second user interface object, different from the first user interface object, at a third location different from the first location”). Applicant must resolve these conflicting limitations.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of detecting acceleration (detecting, via the one or more input devices, acceleration in a first direction… continuing to detect, via the one or more input devices, the acceleration in the first direction).
Step 2A, Prong 1
The limitations that describe the detecting acceleration are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims also include elements of a computer system, input devices, and displaying user interface objects, however nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements regarding a computer system, input devices, and displaying user interface objects are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are not considered improvements to the functioning of a technology or technical field. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extrasolutionary elements are not considered significantly more than just applying the steps of detecting acceleration.
Step 2B
In addition to the abstract idea, the claims have the computer system, input devices, and displaying user interface objects, but they represent only well-understood, routine, conventional activity that can be performed on generic computers. The computer system and input devices (including an accelerometer) are considered generic computer components, and thus are considered as merely applying the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Sipolins et al (US20250111562A1; filed 9/28/2023) discloses how well-understood, routine, and conventional the displaying of user interface objects is: paragraph 30: “overlay system 100 may reduce or prevent motion sickness when a user scrolls through social media or other content 120 on a smartphone while riding in a moving vehicle 150 as seen in FIG. 1.” The claims are not patent eligible.
As per claim 2, this claim has similar detecting and displaying steps and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 3, this claim has similar displaying steps and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 4, this claim has similar displaying steps and is rejected similarly to claim 1. Claim 4 also recites an additional element of changing a visual characteristic of a user interface object.
(Step 2A, prong 2) The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements regarding changing a visual characteristic of a user interface object are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are not considered improvements to the functioning of a technology or technical field.
(Step 2B) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the changing a visual characteristic of a user interface object is not considered significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements represent only well-understood, routine, conventional activity that can be performed on generic computer systems. Sipolins et al (US20250111562A1; filed 9/28/2023) discloses how well-understood, routine, and conventional the displaying of user interface objects is: paragraph 30: “overlay system 100 may reduce or prevent motion sickness when a user scrolls through social media or other content 120 on a smartphone while riding in a moving vehicle 150 as seen in FIG. 1” (Scrolling through content changes visual characteristics of the content being scrolled). The claims are not patent eligible.
As per claim 5, this claim has similar detecting and displaying steps (ceasing to detect and ceasing to display are not considered as different types of steps) and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per claim 6, this claim recites an additional abstract idea of determination (a determination that the first direction is in a first orientation). The determination of an orientation is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is also the moving of user interface objects in the display, but this is rejected similarly to the displaying steps of claim 1.
As per claim 7, this claim has similar displaying steps and is rejected similarly to claim 1. Claim 7 also recites an additional element of overlaying a user interface object.
(Step 2A, prong 2) The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements regarding overlaying a user interface object are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are not considered improvements to the functioning of a technology or technical field.
(Step 2B) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the overlaying a user interface object is not considered significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements represent only well-understood, routine, conventional activity that can be performed on generic computer systems. Sipolins et al (US20250111562A1; filed 9/28/2023) discloses how well-understood, routine, and conventional the overlaying a user interface object is: paragraph 2: “displaying an overlay effect on the screen of a device”. The claims are not patent eligible.
As per claim 8, this claim has similar detecting and displaying steps (ceasing to display are not considered as different types of steps) and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 9, this claim has similar detecting and displaying steps (ceasing to display are not considered as different types of steps) and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 10, this claim has similar determination and moving steps and is rejected similarly to claim 6.
As per claim 11, this claim has similar detecting and displaying steps (ceasing to display are not considered as different types of steps) and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 12, this claim has similar detecting steps and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 13, this claim has similar detecting and displaying steps (ceasing to detect and ceasing to display are not considered as different types of steps) and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 14, this claim has similar detecting steps (the magnitude of the acceleration is what is detected) and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 15, this claim has similar detecting steps and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 16, this claim has similar displaying of user interface objects and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 17, this claim has similar detecting and displaying steps and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 18, this claim has similar displaying of user interface objects and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is thus rejected along the same rationale. The processors are interpreted as merely part of a generic computer system as claimed in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sipolins et al (US20250111562A1; filed 9/28/2023).
With regards to claim 1, Sipolins et al discloses a method, comprising: at a computer system that is in communication with a display and one or more input devices (Sipolins et al, abstract: “In some embodiments the systems and methods generate for display, on a device, a content item. The systems and methods determine an acceleration of the device”):
while displaying, via the display, a user interface object in an initial manner, detecting, via the one or more input devices, acceleration in a first direction (Sipolins et al, abstract: “In some embodiments the systems and methods generate for display, on a device, a content item. The systems and methods determine an acceleration of the device”);
in response to detecting the acceleration in the first direction, displaying, via the display, the user interface object in a subsequent manner different than the initial manner based on the acceleration (Sipolins et al, paragraph 43: “The overlay system 100 then determines, using on the calculated vector, animation of objects 410 to match the detected acceleration. For example, FIG. 4B shows the objects 410 of FIG. 4A shifted to the left after the device 400 experiences acceleration in the left direction.”);
after displaying the user interface object in the subsequent manner based on the acceleration, continuing to detect, via the one or more input devices, the acceleration in the first direction (Sipolins et al, paragraph 35: “The acceleration sensors may provide to the overlay system 100 an acceleration data stream, which is a continuous or ongoing flow of acceleration data”);
and in response to continuing to detect the acceleration in the first direction, displaying, via the display, the user interface object in the initial manner (Sipolins et al, paragraph 54: “The process then returns to step 1008 where the overlay system 100 determines if a next calculated acceleration vector meets the threshold value.” Paragraph 43: “The overlay system 100 detects acceleration, as discussed above and described in more detail below, and animates objects 410 to depict acceleration in the same or similar direction, magnitude, and rate as the detected acceleration, or in some embodiments with the same acceleration vector, to reflect the detected acceleration as a visual cue.” The acceleration is constantly detected, and will show the object in the initial manner when the detected acceleration value matches the initial acceleration value). Note: “Continuing to detect the acceleration in the first direction” does not require the acceleration to maintain the same values, just the same direction as part of the vector.
With regards to claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Sipolins et al discloses before detecting the first acceleration, detecting, via the one or more input devices, a second acceleration; and in response to detecting the second acceleration, displaying, via the display, the user interface object (Sipolins et al, paragraph 35: “In some embodiments the overlay system 100 does not display the overlay 110 until overlay system 100 detects a threshold acceleration. In some embodiments an overlay 110 is present before system 100 detects acceleration. In some embodiments overlay 110 is an animation that moves continually with detect acceleration.”).
With regards to claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Sipolins et al discloses wherein displaying the user interface object in the subsequent manner includes displaying the user interface object with a particular size, opacity, shape, color, or any combination thereof (Sipolins et al, paragraph 44: “In such some embodiments, the objects 410, for example, may appear to become smaller or larger with the distances between them also shrinking or expanding accordingly.” Paragraph 6: “an overlay on a screen showing semitransparent figures, such as balls;” paragraph 45: “In some embodiments, the overlay system 100 determines the average, dominant, or most common color on the display 307 and adjusts the color of the overlay 110 to ensure contrast.” Note: the size, opacity, etc. just has to be “particular”, so any display of a user interface object would disclose this limitation).
With regards to claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Sipolins et al discloses wherein displaying the user interface object in the subsequent manner includes changing a first visual characteristic of the user interface object at a first point in time, and wherein displaying the user interface object in the subsequent manner includes changing a second visual characteristic of the user interface object, different from the first visual characteristic of the user interface object, at the first point in time (Sipolins et al, paragraph 35: “For example, the overlay system may calculate an intensity, size, positioning, acceleration on the display, or other parameters that when applied to the overlay 110 create an illusion of acceleration of the same vector as that detected, such as an animation of an object moving in equal and opposite direction and rate”).
With regards to claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Sipolins et al discloses while displaying the user interface object, ceasing to detect the acceleration in the first direction; and in response to ceasing to detect the acceleration in the first direction, ceasing to display the user interface object (Sipolins et al, paragraph 55: “If at step 1102 the overlay system 100 determines that no device acceleration is detected the overlay system 100 in some embodiments displays no overlay 110… and returns to detecting acceleration at step 1102.”).
With regards to claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Sipolins et al discloses in response to detecting the acceleration in the first direction: in accordance with a determination that the first direction is in a first orientation, moving, via the display, the user interface object in a first manner; and in accordance with a determination that the first direction is in a second orientation different from the first orientation, moving, via the display, the user interface object in a second manner different from the first manner (Sipolins, paragraph 44: “In some examples, the objects 410 may appear to accelerate in a direction and rate that is equal and opposite to those of the perceived acceleration and this acceleration of the object 410 creates a simulation in the visual system of a viewer matching the acceleration the viewer's vestibular system perceives.”).
With regards to claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Sipolins et al discloses displaying, via the display, content, wherein displaying the user interface object includes overlaying the user interface object on the content (Sipolins et al, Figs. 4-8: multiple overlaid objects are displayed; paragraph 31: “An overlay may be, for example, an image or animation displayed on top of other content on a display (e.g., on top of the content 120)”).
With regards to claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Sipolins et al discloses wherein the acceleration in the first direction is a first acceleration, the method further comprising: after detecting the first acceleration, detecting, via one or more input devices, a second acceleration in the first direction; in response to detecting the second acceleration, ceasing to display, via the display, the user interface object (Sipolins et al, paragraph 54: “At step 1008 the overlay system 100, using the calculated three-dimensional acceleration vector determines, for example via processor 305, that an acceleration is detected and whether the acceleration is higher than a threshold value… If at step 1008 the process determines that the detected acceleration is not above a threshold value, the process 1000 moves to step 1011 in which the overlay system 100 disables motion visualization. The process then returns to step 1008 where the overlay system 100 determines if a next calculated acceleration vector meets the threshold value.”).
With regards to claim 9, which depends on claim 8, Sipolins et al discloses after ceasing display of the user interface object, detecting, via the one or more input devices, a third acceleration in the first direction (Sipolins et al, paragraph 54: “If at step 1008 the process determines that the detected acceleration is not above a threshold value, the process 1000 moves to step 1011 in which the overlay system 100 disables motion visualization. The process then returns to step 1008 where the overlay system 100 determines if a next calculated acceleration vector meets the threshold value.”); and in response to detecting the third acceleration, displaying, via the display, the user interface object in the initial manner (Sipolins et al, paragraph 54: “At step 1008 the overlay system 100, using the calculated three-dimensional acceleration vector determines, for example via processor 305, that an acceleration is detected and whether the acceleration is higher than a threshold value… If at step 1008 the process determines that the detected acceleration is above a threshold value, the process 1000 moves to step 1009 in which overlay system 100 updates the three-dimensional acceleration vector based on the angle of the device.”).
With regards to claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Sipolins et al discloses wherein displaying the user interface object includes moving the user interface object (Sipolins et al, paragraph 2: “The overlay may include semitransparent images that appear to move in a direction consistent with detected acceleration.”), and wherein: in accordance with a determination that the acceleration has a first magnitude, the user interface object is moved at a first rate; and in accordance with a determination that the acceleration has a second magnitude, different from the first magnitude, the user interface object is moved at a second rate different from the first rate (Sipolins et al, paragraph 43: “The overlay system 100 detects acceleration, as discussed above and described in more detail below, and animates objects 410 to depict acceleration in the same or similar direction, magnitude, and rate as the detected acceleration, or in some embodiments with the same acceleration vector, to reflect the detected acceleration as a visual cue”).
With regards to claim 11, which depends on claim 1, Sipolins et al discloses while displaying the user interface object, detecting, via the input device, that a magnitude of the acceleration is less than an acceleration threshold; and in response to detecting that the magnitude of the acceleration is less than the acceleration threshold, ceasing to display, via the display, the user interface object (Sipolins et al, paragraph 54: “At step 1008 the overlay system 100, using the calculated three-dimensional acceleration vector determines, for example via processor 305, that an acceleration is detected and whether the acceleration is higher than a threshold value… If at step 1008 the process determines that the detected acceleration is not above a threshold value, the process 1000 moves to step 1011 in which the overlay system 100 disables motion visualization. The process then returns to step 1008 where the overlay system 100 determines if a next calculated acceleration vector meets the threshold value.”).
With regards to claim 12, which depends on claim 1, Sipolins et al discloses wherein continuing to detect the acceleration includes detecting, via the input device, a change in one or more attributes of the acceleration (Sipolins et al, paragraph 35: “The acceleration sensors may provide to the overlay system 100 an acceleration data stream, which is a continuous or ongoing flow of acceleration data;” paragraph 54: “The process then returns to step 1008 where the overlay system 100 determines if a next calculated acceleration vector meets the threshold value.” The acceleration sensors are constantly detecting and comparing the acceleration vectors to a threshold).
With regards to claim 13, which depends on claim 1, Sipolins et al discloses while displaying the user interface object, ceasing to detect, via the input device, the acceleration in the first direction (note: “ceasing to detect” can be interpreted as either the active sensors no longer detecting the acceleration, or the sensors being disabled and no longer detecting anything; for this rejection it is being interpreted as just no longer detecting “the acceleration”); and in response to ceasing to detect the acceleration in the first direction, ceasing to display, via the display, the user interface object (Sipolins et al, paragraph 54: “At step 1008 the overlay system 100, using the calculated three-dimensional acceleration vector determines, for example via processor 305, that an acceleration is detected and whether the acceleration is higher than a threshold value… If at step 1008 the process determines that the detected acceleration is not above a threshold value, the process 1000 moves to step 1011 in which the overlay system 100 disables motion visualization. The process then returns to step 1008 where the overlay system 100 determines if a next calculated acceleration vector meets the threshold value.”).
With regards to claim 14, which depends on claim 1, Sipolins et al discloses wherein a magnitude of the acceleration in the first direction is greater than an acceleration threshold (Sipolins et al, paragraph 54: “At step 1008 the overlay system 100, using the calculated three-dimensional acceleration vector determines, for example via processor 305, that an acceleration is detected and whether the acceleration is higher than a threshold value… If at step 1008 the process determines that the detected acceleration is above a threshold value, the process 1000 moves to step 1009”).
With regards to claim 15, which depends on claim 1, Sipolins et al discloses wherein the acceleration in the first direction corresponds to an external structure (Sipolins et al, paragraph 42: “acceleration sensor 313 in some embodiments may be an IMU attached to vehicle 150 which detects acceleration of vehicle 150”).
With regards to claim 16, which depends on claim 1, Sipolins et al discloses wherein the user interface object is a first user interface object, wherein the first user interface object is displayed at a first location while detecting the acceleration in the first direction, wherein the first user interface object is displayed at a second location, different from the first location, in response to detecting the acceleration in the first direction (Sipolins et al, paragraph 43: “For example, FIG. 4B shows the objects 410 of FIG. 4A shifted to the left after the device 400 experiences acceleration in the left direction;” Fig. 4A-4B: each object 410 is shifted to a different location), the method further comprising:
while displaying the first user interface object in the initial manner, displaying, via the display, a second user interface object, different from the first user interface object, at a third location different from the first location, wherein the first location is in a first direction from the second location (Sipolins et al, Fig. 4A: one of the other dots 410 is displayed at another position from the first dot (e.g. top left dot is the first UI object, top middle dot is the second UI object; the top middle dot is to the right of the top left dot));
and in response to detecting the acceleration in the first direction, displaying, via the display, the second user interface object at a fourth location different from the second location and the third location, wherein the fourth location is in the first direction from the third location, wherein a distance between the second location and the first location is a first distance, wherein a distance between the fourth location and the third location is a second distance, and wherein the second distance is the same as the first distance (Sipolins et al, paragraph 43: “Over content 401 the screen displays an overlay of objects 410 arranged in a grid pattern.” Fig. 4A-4B: the objects maintain the grid layout as they move, so the distances and directions between objects is maintained).
With regards to claim 17, which depends on claim 16, Sipolins et al discloses while displaying the first user interface object at the first location and the second user interface object at the third location, displaying, via the display, a third user interface object, different from the first user interface object and the second user interface object, at a fifth location different from the first location and the third location, wherein the first location is in a second direction, different from the first direction, from the fourth location (Sipolins et al, Fig. 4A: one of the other dots 410 is displayed at another position from the first dot (e.g. top left dot is the first UI object, top middle dot is the second UI object, top right dot is the third UI object)); and in response to detecting the acceleration in the first direction, displaying, via the display, the third user interface object at a sixth location different from the second location and the fourth location, wherein the fourth location is in the second direction from the third location, wherein a distance between the sixth location and the fifth location is a third distance, and wherein the third distance is the same as the first distance and the second distance (Sipolins et al, paragraph 43: “Over content 401 the screen displays an overlay of objects 410 arranged in a grid pattern.” Fig. 4A-4B: the objects maintain the grid layout as they move, so the distances and directions between objects is maintained).
With regards to claim 18, which depends on claim 17, Sipolins et al discloses wherein the first user interface object is displayed in the initial manner at the same location as the second user interface object, wherein the third user interface object is displayed in the initial manner at a different horizontal location than the first user interface object, and wherein the third user interface object is not displayed in the initial manner at the same location as the first user interface object and the second user interface object (Sipolins et al, Fig. 4A: The objects are all displayed in different horizontal locations (e.g. top left, top middle, top right). “The same location” is interpreted as the left 2/3 of the display for the sake of this rejection, but see the 35 USC 112 rejection regarding the first and second UI element being simultaneously displayed at different and the same locations).
Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hanao et al (Evan Hanau and Voicu Popescu. 2017. MotionReader: Visual Acceleration Cues for Alleviating Passenger E-Reader Motion Sickness. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications Adjunct (AutomotiveUI '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 72–76. https://doi.org/10.1145/3131726.3131741): Teaches providing visual acceleration cues to help with motion sickness based on acceleration sensor data.
Smyth et al (US 7918781 B1): Teaches adding user interface objects which indicate the detected acceleration of the device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRODERICK C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday, Thursday-Saturday 9-5 PST.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at 5712724124. 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.
/B.C.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2178 /STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights