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 .
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 10/28/2024 for application number 18/929,559. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and claims.
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
Drawings
Examiner contends that the drawings filed 10/28/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/28/2024 contains an element on line 7 page 1 that fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because it has the incorrect patent number associated with the presented issue data and name. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein the best match capability is executable at the secondary lightweight of the information handling system…” in line 12, but it appears Applicant meant “wherein the best match capability is executable at the secondary lightweight OS of the information handling system…”.
Claim 12 depends on claim 9 but recites “the updated current chat session history” and thus appear to depend on claim 10 or 11 instead.
. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 9, and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/929,530 in view of Suryanarayana et al. (hereinafter as Suryanarayana) PGPUB 2021/0089325.
As per claim 1, copending Application No. 18/929,530 teaches an information handling system executing computer readable code instructions for an on the box (OTB) artificial intelligence (AI) productivity tool comprising: a hardware processor receiving a user query input at an main operating system (OS) level requesting a responsive capability intent action to be taken by the information handling system within a current chat session with a user; the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions for performing a semantic similarity search comparing the query input intent value generated for the user query input with a plurality of capability intent values generated from natural language descriptions of gathered capabilities associated with a secondary lightweight OS and AI productivity tool-enableable software applications to identify a best match secondary OS capability for the received user query input having a highest semantic similarity search score, wherein the best match secondary OS capability is executable at the secondary lightweight of the information handling system and requires a reboot to a basic input/output system (BIOS), where the secondary lightweight OS operates for a limited task set when a main OS does not execute; the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions of the OTB AI productivity tool to store the best match secondary OS capability in a non-volatile shared memory mailbox location reserved in a random access memory (RAM) or a partitioned memory drive space; and the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions of a secondary OS AI productivity tool of a secondary lightweight OS to retrieve the best match secondary OS capability from the non-volatile shared memory mailbox location after reboot to BIOS and to execute the best match secondary OS capability as the responsive capability intent action.
Copending Application No. 18/929,530 does not explicitly claim store a current chat session history at the shared memory mailbox location.
Suryanarayana teaches communication with a chatbot that causes a reboot to execute a script or task. Suryanarayana is thus similar to copending Application No. 18/929,530. Suryanarayana further teaches store a current chat session history at the shared memory mailbox location [0027: (chat transcript may be saved in the namespace)]. Suryanarayana teaches saving the chat transcript in the same location as the script that is to be executed upon reboot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Suryanarayana’s teachings of saving the chat transcript in memory in copending Application No. 18/929,530. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to save the chat transcript locally in Copending Application No. 18/929,530 because it allows for faster local access to it after a reboot or when there is no internet connectivity, so that the system or user knows what to do next even if the chatbot cannot be currently reached.
Claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale, while referencing claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/929,530 which has the same scope as its claim 1.
Comparisons of selected claims are shown in the following table.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant Application (18/929,559)
Co-Pending Application (18/929,530)
1. An information handling system executing computer readable code instructions for an on the box (OTB) artificial intelligence (AI) productivity tool comprising: a hardware processor receiving a user query input at an main operating system (OS) level requesting a responsive capability intent action to be taken by the information handling system within a current chat session with a user; the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions for performing a semantic similarity search comparing the query input intent value generated for the user query input with a plurality of capability intent values generated from natural language descriptions of gathered capabilities associated with a secondary lightweight OS and AI productivity tool-enableable software applications to identify a best match secondary OS capability for the received user query input having a highest semantic similarity search score, wherein the best match secondary OS capability is executable at the secondary lightweight of the information handling system and requires a reboot to a basic input/output system (BIOS), where the secondary lightweight OS operates for a limited task set when a main OS does not execute; the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions of the OTB AI productivity tool to store a current chat session history and the best match secondary OS capability in a non-volatile shared memory mailbox location reserved in a random access memory (RAM) or a partitioned memory drive space; and the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions of a secondary OS AI productivity tool of a secondary lightweight OS to retrieve the best match secondary OS capability from the non-volatile shared memory mailbox location after reboot to BIOS and to execute the best match secondary OS capability as the responsive capability intent action.
1. An information handling system executing computer readable code instructions for an on the box (OTB) artificial intelligence (AI) productivity tool comprising: a hardware processor receiving a user query input at a main operating system (OS) level via an input/output device requesting a capability intent action to be taken by the information handling system; the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions at the main OS level for generating a query input intent value for the user query input; the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions for performing a semantic similarity search comparing the query input intent value to a plurality of capability intent values generated from natural language descriptions of gathered secondary OS capabilities associated with a secondary lightweight OS and capabilities associated with AI productivity tool-enableable software applications to identify a best match secondary OS capability for the received user query input having a highest semantic similarity search score, wherein the best match secondary OS capability includes erasing drive memory at the information handling system and requires rebooting from the main OS level to a basic input/output system (BIOS) and the secondary lightweight OS that executes limited tasks separate from the main OS level; the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions for storing the best match secondary OS level capability in a non-volatile shared memory mailbox location reserved in random access memory (RAM) or partitioned drive space that is retrieved by a secondary OS AI productivity tool after reboot; and the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions of the secondary OS AI productivity tool to execute the computer-readable code instructions for the best match secondary OS capability via the secondary lightweight OS as the responsive capability intent action to the user query input received at the main OS level.
9. A method of automating reboot into and execution of a secondary lightweight operating system (OS) and maintaining a current user chat session across an main OS level and the secondary lightweight OS of an information handling system comprising: receiving, via an input/output device, a user query input at an main OS level requesting a responsive capability intent action to be taken by the information handling system within the current chat session with a user; executing computer-readable code instructions, via the hardware processor, for performing a semantic similarity search comparing the query input intent value generated for the user query input with a plurality of capability intent values generated from natural language descriptions of gathered capabilities associated with a secondary lightweight OS and AI productivity tool-enableable software applications; identifying, via the hardware processor, a best match secondary OS capability responsive to the received user query input having a highest semantic similarity search score, wherein the best match secondary OS capability is executable at the secondary lightweight OS of the information handling system separately from the main OS level, and requires a reboot to a basic input/output system (BIOS), wherein the secondary lightweight OS operates for a limited task set when a main OS does not execute; storing a current chat session history and the best match secondary OS capability in a non-volatile shared memory mailbox location reserved in a random access memory (RAM) or a partitioned memory drive space; and executing computer-readable code instructions of a secondary OS AI productivity tool, via the hardware processor, to retrieve the best match secondary OS capability from the non-volatile shared memory mailbox location after reboot to BIOS and the secondary lightweight OS to execute the best match secondary OS capability as the responsive capability intent action to the user query input received at the main OS level.
1. An information handling system executing computer readable code instructions for an on the box (OTB) artificial intelligence (AI) productivity tool comprising: a hardware processor receiving a user query input at a main operating system (OS) level via an input/output device requesting a capability intent action to be taken by the information handling system; the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions at the main OS level for generating a query input intent value for the user query input; the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions for performing a semantic similarity search comparing the query input intent value to a plurality of capability intent values generated from natural language descriptions of gathered secondary OS capabilities associated with a secondary lightweight OS and capabilities associated with AI productivity tool-enableable software applications to identify a best match secondary OS capability for the received user query input having a highest semantic similarity search score, wherein the best match secondary OS capability includes erasing drive memory at the information handling system and requires rebooting from the main OS level to a basic input/output system (BIOS) and the secondary lightweight OS that executes limited tasks separate from the main OS level; the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions for storing the best match secondary OS level capability in a non-volatile shared memory mailbox location reserved in random access memory (RAM) or partitioned drive space that is retrieved by a secondary OS AI productivity tool after reboot; and the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions of the secondary OS AI productivity tool to execute the computer-readable code instructions for the best match secondary OS capability via the secondary lightweight OS as the responsive capability intent action to the user query input received at the main OS level.
14. An information handling system executing computer readable code instructions for an on the box (OTB) artificial intelligence (AI) productivity tool comprising: a hardware processor receiving a user query input at an main operating system (OS) level requesting a responsive capability intent action to be taken by the information handling system; the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions for performing a semantic similarity search comparing the query input intent value generated for the user query input with a plurality of capability intent values generated from natural language descriptions of gathered capabilities associated with a secondary lightweight OS and AI productivity tool-enableable software applications to identify a best match secondary OS capability for the received user query input having a highest semantic similarity search score, wherein the best match secondary OS capability is executable at the secondary lightweight OS of the information handling system, wherein the secondary lightweight OS operates for a limited task set when a main OS does not execute; the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions of the OTB AI productivity tool for storing the best match secondary OS capability in a non-volatile shared memory mailbox location reserved in random access memory (RAM) or a partitioned memory drive space; the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions of a secondary OS AI productivity tool to retrieve the best match secondary OS capability from the non-volatile shared memory mailbox location after a reboot to the secondary lightweight OS of the information handling system; and the hardware processor to execute the best match secondary OS capability of the secondary lightweight OS as the responsive capability intent action to the user query input received at the main OS level.
15. An information handling system executing computer readable code instructions for an on the box (OTB) artificial intelligence (AI) productivity tool comprising: a hardware processor receiving a user query input at the main operating system (OS) level, via an input/output device, requesting a responsive capability intent action to erase drive memory to be taken by the information handling system; the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions at the main OS level for generating a query input intent value for the user query input; the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions or the OTB AI productivity tool at the main OS level for performing a semantic similarity search comparing the query input intent value to a plurality of capability intent values generated from natural language descriptions of gathered capabilities associated with a secondary lightweight OS and with AI productivity tool-enableable software applications to identify a best match secondary OS capability for the received user query input having a highest semantic similarity search score, wherein the secondary lightweight OS executes limited tasks separate from the main OS level when a main OS cannot execute for those limited tasks; the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions for storing the best match secondary OS capability in a non-volatile shared memory mailbox location set aside in a memory drive partition that is accessible by a secondary OS AI productivity tool executing at the secondary lightweight OS; the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions for rebooting into the BIOS and the secondary lightweight OS and executing the secondary OS AI productivity tool to retrieve the best match secondary OS capability to erase the drive memory from the non-volatile shared memory mailbox location set aside in the memory drive partition; and the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions of the secondary lightweight OS to execute computer-readable code instructions for the best match secondary OS capability to erase the memory drive, except the memory drive partition, as the responsive capability intent action to the user query input received at the main OS level.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9, 13-14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suryanarayana et al. (hereinafter as Suryanarayana) PGPUB 2021/0089325, and further in view of Boyapalle et al. (hereinafter as Boyapalle) PGPUB 2023/0177190.
As per claim 1, Suryanarayana teaches an information handling system executing computer readable code instructions for an on the box (OTB) artificial intelligence (AI) productivity tool [0037: (chat bot)] comprising:
a hardware processor [FIG. 8 processor 802] receiving a user query input at an main operating system (OS) level requesting a responsive capability intent action to be taken by the information handling system within a current chat session with a user [0024, 0032, and 0037: (when user has issue with the computing device 102, user may use chat application (which is an application running on a main OS level) to initiate a chat to describe the problem (user query input))];
the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions for performing a semantic similarity search comparing the query input intent value generated for the user query input with a plurality of capability intent values to identify a best match capability for the received user query input having a highest semantic similarity search score [0024, 0040-0042, 0046, 0049, and 0061: (correlation is performed and phrases are analyzed to find the solution tokens that will provide the best matching script (best match capability))], wherein the best match capability is executable at the information handling system and requires a reboot to a basic input/output system (BIOS) [0036-0037 and 0057-0058: (store a script and cause a reboot to BIOS to execute the script)];
the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions of the OTB AI productivity tool to store a current chat session history and the best match capability in a non-volatile shared memory mailbox location reserved in a random access memory (RAM) or a partitioned memory drive space [0017, 0019, 0026-0027, 0034, 0057, and 0067: (script may be stored in non-volatile namespace (mailbox); chat transcript and logs may also be stored in the namespace)]; and
the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions of a productivity tool to retrieve the best match capability from the non-volatile shared memory mailbox location after reboot to BIOS and to execute the best match capability as the responsive capability intent action [0017, 0019, 0034, and 0037: (execute the script after reboot to BIOS)].
Suryanarayana does not explicitly teach capabilities associated with a secondary lightweight OS and AI productivity tool-enableable software applications to identify a best match secondary OS capability for the received user query input; where the secondary lightweight OS operates for a limited task set when a main OS does not execute. Suryanarayana does not mention using a secondary OS and instead uses the BIOS to execute a script.
Boyapalle teaches deploying tasks to be executed in a BIOS environment to make an adjustment to an information handling system. Boyapalle is thus similar to Suryanarayana because they both teach sending script or task to the BIOS to execute in the BIOS environment. Boyapalle further teaches a secondary lightweight OS and where the secondary lightweight OS operates for a limited task set when a main OS does not execute [0038: (in an alternative to using BIOS to perform tasks, a lightweight OS agent (secondary OS) may be used to deploy software or adjustments)]. Boyapalle teaches using a second lightweight OS to make modifications instead of having the BIOS run the script.
The combination of Suryanarayana with Boyapalle leads to Suryanarayana being provided with a second lightweight OS agent, having the system reboot to load the second OS, and using that second OS to run the script instead of the BIOS/UEFI to make adjustments or modifications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Boyapalle’s teachings of using a second OS to execute the script or tasks in Suryanarayana instead of the BIOS/UEFI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the second OS to run script and execute tasks instead of the BIOS/UEFI in Suryanarayana because using an OS allows for more advanced modifications to the system and higher performance compared to running a BIOS/UEFI.
As per claim 4, Suryanarayana and Boyapalle teach the information handling system of claim 1 further comprising: the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions for storing user backup data in the non-volatile shared memory mailbox location reserved in the RAM or the partitioned memory drive space prior to booting to the BIOS and the secondary lightweight OS [Suryanarayana 0027 and 0034: (script, logs, and other data are saved first to namespace, and then a reboot is triggered)].
As per claim 5, Suryanarayana and Boyapalle teach the information handling system of claim 1 further comprising: the hardware processor executing computer-readable code instructions for receiving a user instruction via a universal user conversational interface software application at the main OS level to proceed with a reboot to BIOS and the secondary lightweight OS prior to booting to the secondary lightweight OS and initiating the secondary OS AI productivity tool [Suryanarayana 0032-0034: (chat is performed by an application when OS is loaded, and upon receiving script, reboot occurs to execute the script during reboot)].
As per claim 6, Suryanarayana and Boyapalle teach the information handling system of claim 1 wherein the best match secondary OS capability includes resetting the main OS [0034: (reboot (reset) OS)].
As per claim 7, Suryanarayana and Boyapalle teach the information handling system of claim 1 wherein the best match secondary OS capability includes repair of a hardware component of the information handling system [0032: (user has issue with wi-fi or hyperthreading (repair of hardware issues)].
Claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 4 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 4 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 5 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 6 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 7 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suryanarayana et al. (hereinafter as Suryanarayana) PGPUB 2021/0089325 in view of Boyapalle et al. (hereinafter as Boyapalle) PGPUB 2023/0177190, and further in view of Suryanarayana et al. (hereinafter as Suryanarayana 965) PGPUB 2021/0026965.
As per claim 8, Suryanarayana and Boyapalle teach the information handling system of claim 1.
Suryanarayana and Boyapalle do not teach wherein the best match secondary OS capability includes cloning a solid state disk of the information handling system. Suryanarayana and Boyapalle do not explicitly mention cloning a solid state disk.
Suryanarayana 965 teaches communication with remote server and repair or recovery of system. Suryanarayana 965 is thus similar to Suryanarayana and Boyapalle. Suryanarayana 965 further teaches wherein the best match secondary OS capability includes cloning a solid state disk of the information handling system [0003, 0004, 0037, and 0060: (communication with server leads to disk backup; disk backup of solid state disk may be done in recovery OS)].
The combination of Suryanarayana and Boyapalle with Suryanarayana 965 leads to receiving a script to be executed by the second/recovery OS upon reboot to perform a disk backup of the solid state drive.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Suryanarayana 965 teachings of disk backup of the solid state drive in the recovery OS environment in Suryanarayana and Boyapalle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform a disk backup in Suryanarayana and Boyapalle because it provides a backup in case the modifications are unsuccessful or causes other issues or corruption.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 11-12, and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the objection and double patenting issues are resolved.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is reminded that in amending in response to a rejection of claims, the patentable novelty must be clearly shown in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited and the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid such references and objections. See 37 CFR §1.111(c).
Thiruchengode Vajaravel et al. (PGPUB 2025/0119462) teaches rebooting to a service operating system and an OTB agent running on it.
Yunus et al. (PGPUB 2025/0110807) teaches API discovery based on user conversation.
Ali et al. (PGPUB 2021/0286685) teaches recovery agent repairing the OS.
Badragan et al. (PGPUB 2025/0371154) teaches instructing cybersecurity agent to rollback and OS event and restore the computer.
Ramakrishna et al. (PGPUB 2018/0121808) teaches a chatbot passing the reboot command via action command.
DV (PGPUB 2014/0173751) teaches user instructing chat agent to restart machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANNY CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 EST.
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, Andrew J. Jung can be reached at 5712703779. 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.
/DANNY CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights