Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment, filed October 14, 2025, has been fully considered and entered. Accordingly, Claims 21-40 are pending in this application. Claims 21, 29, and 34 are Independent Claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 CFR 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.
Claims 21-25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34-37, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anick (PG Pub. No. 2006/0010126 A1), and further in view of Reddy (PG Pub. No. 2007/0168331 A1) and Becker (US Patent No. 6,782,085 B1).
Regarding Claim 21, Anick discloses a system comprising:
one or more computer memories having instructions stored thereon (see Anick, paragraph [0055], for memory 314);
one or more computer processors (see Anick, paragraph [0055], for CPU 302) configured to execute the instructions and perform operations comprising:
receiving a first input, the first input specifying a request to search a collection of documents for documents (see Anick, paragraph [0023], where the received query is processed so as to generate an initial group of ranked search results corresponding to the received query)
generating a first query based on the first input (see Anick, paragraph [0023], where the received query is processed so as to generate an initial group of ranked search results corresponding to the received query);
applying the first query to the collection of documents (see Anick, paragraph [0023], where the received query is processed so as to generate an initial group of ranked search results corresponding to the received query) to receive a first set of results (see Anick, paragraph [0023], where in response to the received query, the initial group of ranked documents and the subset of candidate terms are presented);
receiving a second input, the second input specifying a refinement for the first set of results (see Anick, Fig. 2, where refinement candidates are presented with the option to either refine your search results or replace your search with the new refined search);
combining the first query and the second query into a refined query different from the second query (see Anick, Fig. 2, where refinement candidates are presented with the option to either refine your search results or replace your search with the new refined search [it is the position of the Examiner that replacing a search with a new refined search is not patentably distinguishable from this claim limitation at least in view of paragraph [0040] of the Applicant’s Specification]); and
applying the refined query to the collection of documents to receive a second set of results (see Anick, Fig. 2, where refinement candidates are presented with the option to either refine your search results or replace your search with the new refined search).
Anick does not disclose:
the documents have a first attribute; and
wherein the first set of results is stored and not indexed; and
wherein the second set of results is indexed.
Reddy discloses:
the documents have a first attribute (see Reddy, paragraph [0007], where providers can associated attributes and labels with their data or attributes and labels can be added to existing data); and
wherein the second set of results is indexed (see Reddy, paragraph [0004], where web-search engines often have a ‘back-end’ that indexes the collection for information in order to make it searchable; for example, web-based search engines periodically crawl the world wide web and create indices of the pages and sites crawled [it is the position of the Examiner that a web-crawler searching and indexing is not patentably distinguishable from indexing search results]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Anick with Reddy for the benefit of searching and refining a search on structured data (see Reddy, Abstract, paragraph [0007]).
Anick in view of Reddy does not disclose wherein the first set of results is stored and not indexed. Becker discloses wherein the first set of results is stored and not indexed (see Becker, column 1, lines 15-20, where a portion of the total data available is stored in a first database that is indexed for quick data retrieval; the total data is stored in a second database that is distinct from the first database, in that the second database does not require explicit indices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Anick and Reddy with Becker for the benefit of only indexing data that needs to be accessed frequently without using resources to index the remaining raw data (see Becker, column 2, lines 4-12).
Regarding Claim 22, Anick in view of Reddy and Becker discloses the system of Claim 21, wherein the operations further comprise causing to present a representation of the first query (see Anick, Fig. 2, Listing of Search Results 142).
Regarding Claim 23, Anick in view of Reddy and Becker discloses the system of Claim 22, wherein the receiving the second input includes receiving the second input associated with the representation of the first query (see Anick, Fig. 2, where refinement suggestions are presented in Refine Your Search box 140 above Listing of Search Results 142).
Regarding Claim 24, Anick in view of Reddy and Becker discloses the system of Claim 21, wherein the operations further comprise causing to present an interactive visual representation of the first set of results (see Anick, Fig. 2, where refinement candidates are presented with the option to either refine your search results or replace your search with the new refined search).
Regarding Claim 25, Anick in view of Reddy and Becker discloses the system of Claim 24, wherein receiving the second input includes receiving the second input based on an interaction by a user with the interactive visual representation, the interaction specifying the refinement (see Anick, Fig. 2, where refinement candidates are presented with the option to either refine your search results or replace your search with the new refined search).
Regarding Claim 27, Anick in view of Reddy and Becker discloses the system of Claim 21, wherein the collection of documents is indexed (see Anick, paragraph [0021], where the present invention provides an improved method for refining a search query that is designed to retrieve documents from a document index).
Regarding Claim 29, Anick discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving a first input, the first input specifying a request to search a collection of documents for documents (see Anick, paragraph [0023], where the received query is processed so as to generate an initial group of ranked search results corresponding to the received query)
generating a first query based on the first input (see Anick, paragraph [0023], where the received query is processed so as to generate an initial group of ranked search results corresponding to the received query);
applying the first query to the collection of documents (see Anick, paragraph [0023], where the received query is processed so as to generate an initial group of ranked search results corresponding to the received query) to receive a first set of results (see Anick, paragraph [0023], where in response to the received query, the initial group of ranked documents and the subset of candidate terms are presented);
receiving a second input, the second input specifying a refinement for the first set of results (see Anick, Fig. 2, where refinement candidates are presented with the option to either refine your search results or replace your search with the new refined search);
combining the first query and the second query into a refined query different from the second query (see Anick, Fig. 2, where refinement candidates are presented with the option to either refine your search results or replace your search with the new refined search [it is the position of the Examiner that replacing a search with a new refined search is not patentably distinguishable from this claim limitation at least in view of paragraph [0040] of the Applicant’s Specification]); and
applying the refined query to the collection of documents to receive a second set of results (see Anick, Fig. 2, where refinement candidates are presented with the option to either refine your search results or replace your search with the new refined search).
Anick does not disclose:
the documents have a first attribute; and
wherein the first set of results is stored and not indexed; and
wherein the second set of results is indexed.
Reddy discloses:
the documents have a first attribute (see Reddy, paragraph [0007], where providers can associated attributes and labels with their data or attributes and labels can be added to existing data); and
wherein the second set of results is indexed (see Reddy, paragraph [0004], where web-search engines often have a ‘back-end’ that indexes the collection for information in order to make it searchable; for example, web-based search engines periodically crawl the world wide web and create indices of the pages and sites crawled [it is the position of the Examiner that a web-crawler searching and indexing is not patentably distinguishable from indexing search results]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Anick with Reddy for the benefit of searching and refining a search on structured data (see Reddy, Abstract, paragraph [0007]).
Anick in view of Reddy does not disclose wherein the first set of results is stored and not indexed. Becker discloses wherein the first set of results is stored and not indexed (see Becker, column 1, lines 15-20, where a portion of the total data available is stored in a first database that is indexed for quick data retrieval; the total data is stored in a second database that is distinct from the first database, in that the second database does not require explicit indices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Anick and Reddy with Becker for the benefit of only indexing data that needs to be accessed frequently without using resources to index the remaining raw data (see Becker, column 2, lines 4-12).
Regarding Claim 30, Anick in view of Reddy and Becker discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of Claim 29, wherein the operations further comprise:
causing to present an interactive visual representation of the first set of results (see Anick, Fig. 2, where refinement candidates are presented with the option to either refine your search results or replace your search with the new refined search); and
wherein receiving the second input includes receiving the second input based on an interaction by a user with the interactive visual representation, the interaction specifying the refinement (see Anick, Fig. 2, where refinement candidates are presented with the option to either refine your search results or replace your search with the new refined search).
Regarding Claim 32, Anick in view of Reddy and Becker discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of Claim 29, wherein the collection of documents is indexed (see Anick, paragraph [0021], where the present invention provides an improved method for refining a search query that is designed to retrieve documents from a document index).
Regarding Claim 34, Anick discloses a method comprising:
receiving a first input, the first input specifying a request to search a collection of documents for documents (see Anick, paragraph [0023], where the received query is processed so as to generate an initial group of ranked search results corresponding to the received query)
generating a first query based on the first input (see Anick, paragraph [0023], where the received query is processed so as to generate an initial group of ranked search results corresponding to the received query);
applying the first query to the collection of documents (see Anick, paragraph [0023], where the received query is processed so as to generate an initial group of ranked search results corresponding to the received query) to receive a first set of results (see Anick, paragraph [0023], where in response to the received query, the initial group of ranked documents and the subset of candidate terms are presented);
receiving a second input, the second input specifying a refinement for the first set of results (see Anick, Fig. 2, where refinement candidates are presented with the option to either refine your search results or replace your search with the new refined search);
combining the first query and the second query into a refined query different from the second query (see Anick, Fig. 2, where refinement candidates are presented with the option to either refine your search results or replace your search with the new refined search [it is the position of the Examiner that replacing a search with a new refined search is not patentably distinguishable from this claim limitation at least in view of paragraph [0040] of the Applicant’s Specification]); and
applying the refined query to the collection of documents to receive a second set of results (see Anick, Fig. 2, where refinement candidates are presented with the option to either refine your search results or replace your search with the new refined search).
Anick does not disclose:
the documents have a first attribute; and
wherein the first set of results is stored and not indexed; and
wherein the second set of results is indexed.
Reddy discloses:
the documents have a first attribute (see Reddy, paragraph [0007], where providers can associated attributes and labels with their data or attributes and labels can be added to existing data); and
wherein the second set of results is indexed (see Reddy, paragraph [0004], where web-search engines often have a ‘back-end’ that indexes the collection for information in order to make it searchable; for example, web-based search engines periodically crawl the world wide web and create indices of the pages and sites crawled [it is the position of the Examiner that a web-crawler searching and indexing is not patentably distinguishable from indexing search results]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Anick with Reddy for the benefit of searching and refining a search on structured data (see Reddy, Abstract, paragraph [0007]).
Anick in view of Reddy does not disclose wherein the first set of results is stored and not indexed. Becker discloses wherein the first set of results is stored and not indexed (see Becker, column 1, lines 15-20, where a portion of the total data available is stored in a first database that is indexed for quick data retrieval; the total data is stored in a second database that is distinct from the first database, in that the second database does not require explicit indices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Anick and Reddy with Becker for the benefit of only indexing data that needs to be accessed frequently without using resources to index the remaining raw data (see Becker, column 2, lines 4-12).
Regarding Claim 35, Anick in view of Reddy and Becker discloses the method of Claim 34, further comprising causing to present a representation of the first query (see Anick, Fig. 2, Listing of Search Results 142).
Regarding Claim 36, Anick in view of Reddy and Becker discloses the method of Claim 35, wherein the receiving the second input includes receiving the second input associated with the representation of the first query (see Anick, Fig. 2, where refinement suggestions are presented in Refine Your Search box 140 above Listing of Search Results 142).
Regarding Claim 37, Anick in view of Reddy and Becker discloses the method of Claim 34, further comprising causing to present an interactive visual representation of the first set of results (see Anick, Fig. 2, where refinement candidates are presented with the option to either refine your search results or replace your search with the new refined search).
Regarding Claim 38, Anick in view of Reddy and Becker discloses the method of Claim 37, wherein receiving the second input includes receiving the second input based on an interaction by a user with the interactive visual representation, the interaction specifying the refinement (see Anick, Fig. 2, where refinement candidates are presented with the option to either refine your search results or replace your search with the new refined search).
Regarding Claim 40, Anick in view of Reddy and Becker discloses the method of Claim 34, wherein the collection of documents is indexed (see Anick, paragraph [0021], where the present invention provides an improved method for refining a search query that is designed to retrieve documents from a document index).
Claims 26, 31, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anick, Reddy, and Becker as applied to Claims 21-25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34-37, and 40 above, and further in view of Dimassimo (PG Pub. No. 2013/0024440 A1).
Regarding Claim 26, Anick in view of Reddy and Becker discloses the system of Claim 21, further comprising:
Anick does not disclose:
receiving a third input, the third input specifying a request to search the collection of documents for documents having a second attribute that overlap with the second set of results;
generating a third query based on the refined query and the third input; and
applying the third query to receive a third set of results representing the documents having the second attribute that overlap with the second set of results.
Dimassimo discloses:
receiving a third input, the third input specifying a request to search the collection of documents for documents having a second attribute that overlap with the second set of results (see Dimassimo, paragraph [0017], where method entails receiving search results in response to a search query, displaying a list of search results in a search engine interface and displaying a plurality of facets in the search engine interface; each of the facets is derived from explicit editorial metadata or inferred semantic annotations and comprises faceted search results; each of the faceted search results is displayed in association with user interface elements for including excluding the faceted search result as additional search terms to subsequently refine the search query);
generating a third query based on the refined query and the third input (see Dimassimo, paragraph [0017], where method entails receiving search results in response to a search query, displaying a list of search results in a search engine interface and displaying a plurality of facets in the search engine interface; each of the facets is derived from explicit editorial metadata or inferred semantic annotations and comprises faceted search results; each of the faceted search results is displayed in association with user interface elements for including excluding the faceted search result as additional search terms to subsequently refine the search query); and
applying the third query to receive a third set of results representing the documents having the second attribute that overlap with the second set of results (see Dimassimo, paragraph [0017], where method entails receiving search results in response to a search query, displaying a list of search results in a search engine interface and displaying a plurality of facets in the search engine interface; each of the facets is derived from explicit editorial metadata or inferred semantic annotations and comprises faceted search results; each of the faceted search results is displayed in association with user interface elements for including excluding the faceted search result as additional search terms to subsequently refine the search query).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Anick with Dimassimo for the benefit of semantic navigation (see Dimassimo, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 31, Anick in view of Reddy and Becker discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of Claim 29, further comprising:
Anick does not disclose:
receiving a third input, the third input specifying a request to search the collection of documents for documents having a second attribute that overlap with the second set of results;
generating a third query based on the refined query and the third input; and
applying the third query to receive a third set of results representing the documents having the second attribute that overlap with the second set of results.
Dimassimo discloses:
receiving a third input, the third input specifying a request to search the collection of documents for documents having a second attribute that overlap with the second set of results (see Dimassimo, paragraph [0017], where method entails receiving search results in response to a search query, displaying a list of search results in a search engine interface and displaying a plurality of facets in the search engine interface; each of the facets is derived from explicit editorial metadata or inferred semantic annotations and comprises faceted search results; each of the faceted search results is displayed in association with user interface elements for including excluding the faceted search result as additional search terms to subsequently refine the search query);
generating a third query based on the refined query and the third input (see Dimassimo, paragraph [0017], where method entails receiving search results in response to a search query, displaying a list of search results in a search engine interface and displaying a plurality of facets in the search engine interface; each of the facets is derived from explicit editorial metadata or inferred semantic annotations and comprises faceted search results; each of the faceted search results is displayed in association with user interface elements for including excluding the faceted search result as additional search terms to subsequently refine the search query); and
applying the third query to receive a third set of results representing the documents having the second attribute that overlap with the second set of results (see Dimassimo, paragraph [0017], where method entails receiving search results in response to a search query, displaying a list of search results in a search engine interface and displaying a plurality of facets in the search engine interface; each of the facets is derived from explicit editorial metadata or inferred semantic annotations and comprises faceted search results; each of the faceted search results is displayed in association with user interface elements for including excluding the faceted search result as additional search terms to subsequently refine the search query).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Anick with Dimassimo for the benefit of semantic navigation (see Dimassimo, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 39, Anick in view of Reddy and Becker discloses the method of Claim 34, further comprising:
Anick does not disclose:
receiving a third input, the third input specifying a request to search the collection of documents for documents having a second attribute that overlap with the second set of results;
generating a third query based on the refined query and the third input; and
applying the third query to receive a third set of results representing the documents having the second attribute that overlap with the second set of results.
Dimassimo discloses:
receiving a third input, the third input specifying a request to search the collection of documents for documents having a second attribute that overlap with the second set of results (see Dimassimo, paragraph [0017], where method entails receiving search results in response to a search query, displaying a list of search results in a search engine interface and displaying a plurality of facets in the search engine interface; each of the facets is derived from explicit editorial metadata or inferred semantic annotations and comprises faceted search results; each of the faceted search results is displayed in association with user interface elements for including excluding the faceted search result as additional search terms to subsequently refine the search query);
generating a third query based on the refined query and the third input (see Dimassimo, paragraph [0017], where method entails receiving search results in response to a search query, displaying a list of search results in a search engine interface and displaying a plurality of facets in the search engine interface; each of the facets is derived from explicit editorial metadata or inferred semantic annotations and comprises faceted search results; each of the faceted search results is displayed in association with user interface elements for including excluding the faceted search result as additional search terms to subsequently refine the search query); and
applying the third query to receive a third set of results representing the documents having the second attribute that overlap with the second set of results (see Dimassimo, paragraph [0017], where method entails receiving search results in response to a search query, displaying a list of search results in a search engine interface and displaying a plurality of facets in the search engine interface; each of the facets is derived from explicit editorial metadata or inferred semantic annotations and comprises faceted search results; each of the faceted search results is displayed in association with user interface elements for including excluding the faceted search result as additional search terms to subsequently refine the search query).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Anick with Dimassimo for the benefit of semantic navigation (see Dimassimo, Abstract).
Claims 28, 33, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anick, Reddy, and Becker applied to Claims 21-25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34-37, and 40 above, and further in view of Cazemier (PG Pub. No. 2005/0015367 A1).
Regarding Claim 28, Anick in view of Reddy and Becker discloses the system of Claim 21, wherein:
Anick does not disclose the first attribute corresponds to a value of a field in each document of the collection of documents, the value of the field being an indexed value. Cazemier discloses the first attribute corresponds to a value of a field in each document of the collection of documents, the value of the field being an indexed value (see Cazemier, [0049], where table CALENDAR contains field MONTHID as a primary key [it is the position of the Examiner that a primary key is an indexed value]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Anick with Cazemier for the benefit of preventing double counting of data in ambiguously defined situations (see Cazemier, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 33, Anick in view of Reddy and Becker discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of Claim 29, wherein:
Anick does not disclose the first attribute corresponds to a value of a field in each document of the collection of documents, the value of the field being an indexed value. Cazemier discloses the first attribute corresponds to a value of a field in each document of the collection of documents, the value of the field being an indexed value (see Cazemier, [0049], where table CALENDAR contains field MONTHID as a primary key [it is the position of the Examiner that a primary key is an indexed value]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Anick with Cazemier for the benefit of preventing double counting of data in ambiguously defined situations (see Cazemier, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 38, Anick in view of Reddy and Becker discloses the method of Claim 34, wherein:
Anick does not disclose the first attribute corresponds to a value of a field in each document of the collection of documents, the value of the field being an indexed value. Cazemier discloses the first attribute corresponds to a value of a field in each document of the collection of documents, the value of the field being an indexed value (see Cazemier, [0049], where table CALENDAR contains field MONTHID as a primary key [it is the position of the Examiner that a primary key is an indexed value]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Anick with Cazemier for the benefit of preventing double counting of data in ambiguously defined situations (see Cazemier, Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments, filed October 14, 2025, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks that Anick, alone, or in combination with Reddy and Becker, does not teach, disclose, or fairly suggest, all of the elements of Independent Claims 21, 29, and 34. Specifically, Applicant argues that the combination of references does not disclose “wherein the first set of results is stored and not indexed” and “wherein the second set of results is indexed.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Reddy discloses a web crawler that searches the internet and indexes the results (see Reddy, paragraph [0004], where web-search engines often have a ‘back-end’ that indexes the collection for information in order to make it searchable; for example, web-based search engines periodically crawl the world wide web and create indices of the pages and sites crawled [it is the position of the Examiner that a web-crawler searching and indexing is not patentably distinguishable from indexing search results]). Becker discloses storing data in unindexed form (see Becker, column 1, lines 15-20, where a portion of the total data available is stored in a first database that is indexed for quick data retrieval; the total data is stored in a second database that is distinct from the first database, in that the second database does not require explicit indices). Finally, Anick discloses an interactive system for search query refinement (see Anick, Abstract). For at least these reasons, it is the position of the Examiner that the combination of references discloses all of the elements of Independent Claims 21, 29, and 34.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Kotcheff (PG Pub. No. 2002/0087535 A1), which concerns a method and apparatus facilitating searching.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAD AGHARAHIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-9864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571-272-4080. 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.
/FARHAD AGHARAHIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 2161
/APU M MOFIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights