DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action has been issued in response to Applicant’s Communication of application S/N 18/935,202 filed on Nov. 11, 2024. Claims 1 to 20 are currently pending with the application.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent (“12,164,830”). The claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent are compared in the table below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 7-11, 13, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garmark et al. (US 2018/0188945) Published on Ju. 5, 2018 in view of Roos (US 11,054,966) Date of Patent Jul. 6, 2021, and further in view of Tuli et al. (2009/00006993) Published on Jan. 1, 2009.
As per Claims 1, 14 and 20, A computer-implemented method, comprising: providing, by at least one processor, a data storage element that stores a plurality of playlists including a first playlist and a plurality of media content items of the plurality of playlists, (See para.64, “In some embodiments, the media data store 196 stores media content items 212, media content metadata 214, and playlists 216.”, para.65 “The playlists 216 operate to identify one or more of the media content items 212.” “The playlists 216 may include user-created playlists, which may be available to a particular user, a group of users, or to the public.”; as taught by Garmark)
causing, by the at least one processor, a user device to play back a first media content item of the first playlist; (See para.37, “The media-playback device 102 plays back media content items to produce media output 110.”; as taught by Garmark)
receiving, by the at least one processor, an indication of user input in a user interface of the user device; (See para.45, “The touch screen 152 operates to receive an input 176 from a selector (e.g., a finger, stylus, etc.) controlled by the user U.”; as taught by Garmark)
traversing, by the at least one processor, the data storage element based on the user input across a number of the plurality of playlists or across a number of the plurality of media content items to select a second media content item from the data storage element; and causing, by the at least one processor, the user device to play back the second media content item in response to the indication of the user input; (See para.135, The user interface screen 640 presents a plurality of cards on shelves that represent media content items that can be selected for playback.” Para.136, “The media-playback device is configured to receive touch inputs to switch to a different card (e.g., playlist) or to select a card from a different shelf…” “a swipe touch input that is primarily directed in a horizontal direction will change to a different card in the current shelf and a swipe touch input that is primarily directed in a vertical direction will change to a different card in a different shelf.” Para.191, “when an input associated with a first dimension is received into the user interface, playing another media content item of the selected playlist; when an input associated with a second dimension is received into the user interface, playing another media content item of another selected playlist of the selected group of playlists; and when an input associated with a third dimension is received into the user interface, playing another media content item of another selected playlist of another group of playlists.”; as taught by Garmark)
Garmark fails to teach wherein the data storage element has an origin, and the plurality of playlists or the plurality of media content items are stored in the data storage element at distances from the origin that indicate a respective degree of similarity of content in the plurality of playlists or the plurality of media content items to content in an origin playlist or an origin media content item stored at the origin of the data storage element;
On the other hand Roos teaches wherein the data storage element has an origin, and the plurality of playlists or the plurality of media content items are stored in the data storage element at distances from the origin; (See Col.5, lines 65-col.6, lines 15, “The SPO space can have an arbitrary origin, with SPO positions in the SPO space indicated by coordinates [X, Y, Z] 130; though other coordinate systems, e.g., spherical, can be used.”, See para.24, “SPOs, e.g., 702 can be positioned in the SPO space, e.g.: at discrete positions (e.g., X, Y, and Z are integers), e.g., the intersections of a regular three-dimensional matrix 710, regular points on a spiral 730, or other geometric pattern; continuously … or a combination of discrete and continuous.” See para.103, “The audio capabilities included with the technology make the spatial publishing object interface ideal for music publishing, for listening to music, and for playing music.”; as taught by Roos)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Garmark, by including the teachings of Roos relating to the open model for spatial publishing object visualization allows the complexity of spatial publishing object models to scale to improvements in computer network bandwidth, CPU performance, and 3D graphics rendering speeds over time (see Roos col.10 lines 45-50)
Garmark and Roos fail to teach that distances from the origin indicate a respective degree of similarity of content in the plurality of playlists or the plurality of media content items to content in an origin playlist or an origin media content item stored at the origin of the data storage element.
On the other hand Tuli teaches that distances from the origin indicate a respective degree of similarity of content in the plurality of playlists or the plurality of media content items to content in an origin playlist or an origin media content item stored at the origin of the data storage element; (See claim 1, “displaying a plurality of first user interface (UI) objects each corresponding to an individual category of a plurality of categories, wherein a distance between two displayed first UI objects is indicative of a degree of similarity between the corresponding categories.”, see par.46, “FIG. 4 depicts another exemplary genre map 200 wherein the musical genres are arranged such that genres having similar music are closer to one another while genres having different music are farther from one another.” See para.75, “Given listeners of a particular station, the data indicates which other stations of the genre the listeners like and/or listen to. In such a manner, a relative spatial relationship between a plurality of stations can be obtained by considering which stations in the genre are commonly enjoyed among a base of listeners.”; as taught by Tuli)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Garmark and Roos, by including the teachings of Tuli relating to providing interface object in an improved spatial interface relating to similarity distance provides various advantages over a list-based representation of content providers (e.g., a list of radio stations). A user can see the relationships between categories and/or content providers in an intuitive manner. Furthermore, a user is presented with the most relevant content without having to scroll through a long list of unrelated or irrelevant information; (See para.127, as taught by Tuli)
As per Claim 2, The combination of Garmark, Roos and Tuli teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein traversing the data storage element is from the first media content item to the second media content item across the number of the plurality of playlists or across the number of the plurality of media content items; traversing from a first media content item to a second media content item across media content items of a playlist or across playlists. Garmark discloses playing a first media item from a playlist and then, based on user input, playing another media item of the same playlist or another playlist; (See Garmark claim 8, “playing a first media content item of a first playlist of a first group of playlists” and “responsive to receiving an input associated with a first dimension, playing a second media content item of first playlist.”; as taught by Garmark.)
(See Garmark ¶190, “when a tap input is received at the user interface, playing a next media content item of the selected playlist; when a double tap input is received at the user interface, playing a prior media content item of the selected playlist; when a horizontal swipe input is received at the user interface, playing a media content item of another playlist within the selected group of playlists; and when a vertical swipe input is received at the user interface, playing a media content item of a playlist of a different group of playlists.”; as taught by Garmark.)
(See Garmark ¶191, “when an input associated with a first dimension is received into the user interface, playing another media content item of the selected playlist; when an input associated with a second dimension is received into the user interface, playing another media content item of another selected playlist of the selected group of playlists; and when an input associated with a third dimension is received into the user interface, playing another media content item of another selected playlist of another group of playlists.”; as taught by Garmark.)
As per Claim 7, the combination of Garmark, Roos and Tuli, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the distances from the origin in the data storage element further indicate an amount of previous consumption of the content the user device, wherein a greater distance from the origin corresponds to reduced previous consumption of the content; (See Roos Col.5, lines 60-Col.6, lines 15, “The SPO space can have an arbitrary origin, with SPO positions in the SPO space indicated by coordinates [X, Y, Z] 130; though other coordinate systems, e.g., spherical, can be used.”; as taught by Roos.)
(See Roos ¶26, “SPOs can be ordered in the SPO Space in a variety of ways including: distance from a reference (e.g., an origin) indicating relevance to the query that returned spatial publishing objects for the SPO space.”; as taught by Roos.)
Roos also teaches ordering songs or spatial objects by frequency of play and recent access.
(See Roos Col.6, lines 55- lines 67, “As with SPO positioning, SPO ordering can be subject to parameter bounds set in the software or by users, e.g., songs ordered by frequency of play, most recently accessed spatial publishing objects, friends’ SPOs ordered by frequency of connect operations.”; as taught by Roos.)
As per Claim 8, the combination of Garmark, Roos and Tuli, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, by the at least one processor, a request to initialize a media application on the user device, the request including data identifying a user account associated with the user device, and wherein the plurality of playlists are associated with the user account; (See Garmark ¶47, “the memory device 156 stores instructions for a media-playback engine 170 that includes the limited-attention media-playback engine 108.”; as taught by Garmark.)
(See Garmark ¶47, “the media-playback engine 170 selects and plays back media content and generates interfaces for selecting and playing back media content items.”; as taught by Garmark.) (See Garmark ¶38, “User profile information can also include libraries and/or playlists of media content items associated with the user.”; as taught by Garmark.)
As per Claims 9 and 18, the combination of Garmark, Roos and Tuli, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the user input includes a first single gesture that comprises a first direction of gesture, wherein the traversal of the data storage element is based on the first direction of gesture;
Garmark teaches directional swipe gestures in a user interface and teaches that traversal between cards/shelves is based on the direction of the swipe gesture.
(See Garmark ¶136, “a swipe touch input that is primarily directed in a horizontal direction will change to a different card in the current shelf and a swipe touch input that is primarily directed in a vertical direction will change to a different card in a different shelf.”; as taught by Garmark.)
As per Claims 10 and 19, the combination of Garmark, Roos and Tuli the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the first direction of gesture corresponds to traversing a plurality of columns of the data storage element and indicates a selection of playback of a different media content item from the first playlist, the method further comprising:
receiving, by the at least one processor, an indication of a second single gesture input in the user interface of the user device, wherein the second single gesture input comprises a second direction of gesture, wherein the second direction of gesture corresponds to traversing a plurality of rows of the data storage element and indicates a selection of playback of a different media content item from a second playlist of the data storage element;
Garmark teaches horizontal and vertical gesture directions corresponding to traversal between cards and shelves. Garmark teaches that cards may correspond to media content items and shelves may correspond to playlists.
(See Garmark ¶135, “The cards are arranged along the shelves in a first direction D1 (e.g., horizontal in this figure) and the shelves are arranged in a second direction D2 (e.g., vertical in this figure) relative to each other.”; as taught by Garmark.)
(See Garmark ¶136, “a swipe touch input that is primarily directed in a horizontal direction will change to a different card in the current shelf and a swipe touch input that is primarily directed in a vertical direction will change to a different card in a different shelf.”; as taught by Garmark.)
Garmark further teaches playback of another media content item based on different input dimensions.
(See Garmark ¶190, “when a horizontal swipe input is received at the user interface, playing a media content item of another playlist within the selected group of playlists; and when a vertical swipe input is received at the user interface, playing a media content item of a playlist of a different group of playlists.”; as taught by Garmark.)
(See Garmark ¶191, “when an input associated with a first dimension is received into the user interface, playing another media content item of the selected playlist; when an input associated with a second dimension is received into the user interface, playing another media content item of another selected playlist of the selected group of playlists; and when an input associated with a third dimension is received into the user interface, playing another media content item of another selected playlist of another group of playlists.”; as taught by Garmark.)
To the extent Garmark does not expressly use the terms rows and columns, Tuli teaches orthogonal x/y directional navigation and mapping UI objects to directions.
(See Tuli ¶57, “The next navigable genre from the currently-selected genre, in any of the four directions (up, down, left, right), is the nearest genre measured orthogonally along x and y axes…”; as taught by Tuli.)
(See Tuli ¶63, “FIG. 9A shows the four regions A, B, C, D within which the center of a UI object must be located in order to be mapped to the up, down, left and right directions of navigation, respectively.”; as taught by Tuli.)
As per Claim 11, the combination of Garmark, Roos and Tuli teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the first direction of gesture represents one of two mutually orthogonal directions to navigate the data storage element along a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns, wherein the plurality of media content items associated with each playlist are arranged into the plurality of columns, and the plurality of playlists are arranged into the plurality of rows;
Garmark teaches two orthogonal navigation directions, namely horizontal and vertical, where cards are arranged along shelves in a first direction and shelves are arranged in a second direction. Garmark also teaches that cards may correspond to media content items and shelves may correspond to playlists.
(See Garmark ¶135, “The cards are arranged along the shelves in a first direction D1 (e.g., horizontal in this figure) and the shelves are arranged in a second direction D2 (e.g., vertical in this figure) relative to each other.”; as taught by Garmark.)
(See Garmark ¶135, “In some embodiments, the cards correspond to individual media content items and the shelves correspond to playlists.”; as taught by Garmark.)
(See Garmark ¶136, “a swipe touch input that is primarily directed in a horizontal direction will change to a different card in the current shelf and a swipe touch input that is primarily directed in a vertical direction will change to a different card in a different shelf.”; as taught by Garmark.)
Garmark further teaches that a stack of cards may include a card for each media content item within a playlist.
(See Garmark ¶156, “the stack of cards 858 can include a card for each media content item within a playlist being played by the media-playback device 102.”; as taught by Garmark.)
To the extent further teaching of orthogonal row/column navigation is needed, Tuli teaches navigation in four directions orthogonally along x and y axes.
(See Tuli ¶57, “The next navigable genre from the currently-selected genre, in any of the four directions (up, down, left, right), is the nearest genre measured orthogonally along x and y axes…”; as taught by Tuli.)
(See Tuli ¶64, “considering the four cardinal directions of navigation (up, down, left, right), up to four UI objects … can be mapped to navigational directions…”; as taught by Tuli.)
As per Claim 13, the combination of Garmark, Roos and Tuli teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: a first direction of navigation indicated by the user input away from the origin of the data storage element denotes one or more of: (See Roos col.7, lines 44-46; “ A user can navigate through a SPO space in any direction, e.g., referring to FIG. 10, 1014. ; taught by Roos)
a respective change of time of day associated with the plurality of media content items in the data storage element relative to a current time, a respective degree of similarity of one or more audio characteristics of the plurality of media content items to an origin media content item at the origin, (See Roos ¶26, “SPOs can be ordered in the SPO Space in a variety of ways including: distance from a reference (e.g., an origin) indicating relevance…”; as taught by Roos.)
a respective date that the plurality of media content items were created relative to the origin media content item, or a respective recency of the plurality of media content items being selected by a user account associated with the user device;
and a second direction of navigation indicated by the user input away from the origin of the data storage element denotes a changes in a type, genre, or mood associated with a playlist, or a respective change of time of day associated with the plurality of playlists in the data storage element; (See para.55, For example, in FIG. 5, the up arrow 208 indicates that a user can navigate "upwards" from the currently-selected (e.g., highlighted) genre object 206 (Top 40/Pop). Another genre object 210 (Urban/Hip Hop) is emphasized to indicate that if the user navigates upwards, that genre object 210 (Urban/Hip Hop) will be selected; as taught by Tuli)
Claims 3-6, 12, 15, 16 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garmark et al. (US 2018/0188945) Published on Ju. 5, 2018 in view of Roos (US 11,054,966) Date of Patent Jul. 6, 2021 and further in view of Tuli et al. (2009/00006993) Published on Jan. 1, 2009 and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0285746) Published on Oct. 5, 2017.
As per Claims 3 and 15, the combination of Garmark, Roos and Tuli teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the user input indicates a degree of change between the first media content item and the second media content item, wherein the number of the playlists or the number of the media content items traversed in the data storage element is based on the degree of change indicated by the user input; user input that causes traversal/change among media content items, playlists, or groups of playlists.
Garmark discloses that different user inputs correspond to different dimensions and result in playing another media content item of the selected playlist, another playlist, or another group of playlists.
(See Garmark ¶136, “a swipe touch input that is primarily directed in a horizontal direction will change to a different card in the current shelf and a swipe touch input that is primarily directed in a vertical direction will change to a different card in a different shelf.”; as taught by Garmark.)
(See Garmark ¶137, “the primary direction of a received swipe touch input is determined by comparing the vertical change to the horizontal change between the initial contact point for the swipe touch input and the final contact point for the swipe touch input and selecting the direction with a greater magnitude of change.”; as taught by Garmark.)
(See Garmark ¶191, “when an input associated with a first dimension is received into the user interface, playing another media content item of the selected playlist; when an input associated with a second dimension is received into the user interface, playing another media content item of another selected playlist of the selected group of playlists; and when an input associated with a third dimension is received into the user interface, playing another media content item of another selected playlist of another group of playlists.”; as taught by Garmark.)
Garmark does not expressly teach that the number of playlists or media content items traversed is based on the degree of change indicated by the user input.
On the other hand, Tuli teaches that the number of playlists or media content items traversed is based on the degree of change indicated by the user input; . (See Kim ¶57, “a first force input can produce a scrolling operation that scrolls at a first speed and a different second force input may produce a scrolling operation that scrolls at a different second speed (e.g., faster).” As taught by Kim.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Garmark, Roos and Tuli, by including the teachings of Kim relating to scrolling based input force detection to provide a faster more responsive browsing experience.
As per Claim 4, the combination of Garmark, Roos and Tuli fails to teach the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein a magnitude of pressure of the user input on a touchscreen of the user device or a velocity of a gesture included in the user input;
Garmark teaches wherein the degree of change is indicated by the user input on a touchscreen of the user device or a gesture included in the user input;
(See Garmark ¶45, “The touch screen 152 operates to receive an input 176 from a selector (e.g., a finger, stylus, etc.) controlled by the user U.”; as taught by Garmark.)
(See Garmark claim 1, “responsive to receiving a horizontal swipe input over the touch-sensitive display…” and “responsive to receiving a vertical swipe input over the touch-sensitive display…”; as taught by Garmark.)
Garmark, Roos and Tuli does not expressly teach that the degree of change is indicated by pressure magnitude or gesture velocity.
On the other hand, Kim teaches that the degree of change is indicated by pressure magnitude or gesture velocity. (See Kim ¶57, “a first force input can produce a scrolling operation that scrolls at a first speed and a different second force input may produce a scrolling operation that scrolls at a different second speed (e.g., faster).” As taught by Kim.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Garmark, Roos and Tuli, by including the teachings of Kim relating to scrolling based input force detection to provide a faster more responsive browsing experience.
As per Claim 5, the combination of the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the degree of change is indicated by a force or a duration of a gesture included in the user input; (See Kim ¶57, “a first force input can produce a scrolling operation that scrolls at a first speed and a different second force input may produce a scrolling operation that scrolls at a different second speed (e.g., faster).” As taught by Kim.)
As per Claims 6 and 16, the combination of Garmark, Roos, Tuli and Kim teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the plurality of playlists include one or more media content items selected automatically by a media service based upon media content recommendations provided by a recommendation service for a user associated with the user device; (See Garmark ¶38, “The media content that is played back may be selected based on user input or may be selected without user input.”; as taught by Garmark.) (See Garmark ¶38, “The media content may be selected for playback without user input by either the media-playback device 102 or the media-delivery system 104.”; as taught by Garmark.) (See Garmark ¶38, “User profile information includes but is not limited to user preferences and historical information about the user’s consumption of media content.”; as taught by Garmark.)
As per Claims 12 and 17, Garmark, Roos, Tuli and Kim teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the first single gesture further comprises a force or a duration of gesture, and wherein the force or the duration of gesture indicates a number of the rows or the columns to skip over to select the second media content item for playback; (See Kim ¶57, “a first force input can produce a scrolling operation that scrolls at a first speed and a different second force input may produce a scrolling operation that scrolls at a different second speed (e.g., faster).” As taught by Kim; also See Tuli ¶57, “The next navigable genre from the currently-selected genre, in any of the four directions (up, down, left, right), is the nearest genre measured orthogonally along x and y axes moving through media items…”; as taught by Tuli.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERIEF BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)272-9782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:30pm, Alt Friday, 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, Cordelia Zecher can be reached on 571-272-7771. 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.
/SHERIEF BADAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights