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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 2/27/25 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
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.
Claim 1-4, 7-10, 13-16 and 19-22 are rejected on the ground of anticipation-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 9, 11, 17 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,758,360. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. More specifically, the present application is a broader version of 11,758,360. Note that the underlined portions signify differences between claims. Please see the following table for the claim 1 analysis (and similarly applied to claims 7, 13, 19):
18/959,997
US 11,758,360
Claim Interpretation
1.
A method comprising:
determining, by a first computing device and based on a second computing device receiving an inaudible audio signal, the second computing device is proximate to a location of the first computing device;
determining a user associated with the second computing device;
and
causing, based on a user preference associated with the user, modification to an output of a content item.
1.
A method comprising:
causing, by a first computing device, one or more speakers to emit an inaudible audio signal configured to determine one or more other devices proximate to the first computing device, wherein the inaudible audio signal is received by a second computing device of the one or more other devices; receiving, from the second computing device and based on the inaudible audio signal, an indication that the second computing device received the inaudible audio signal;
determining, by the first computing device and based on receiving the indication from the second computing device, a user associated with the second computing device is proximate to a geographic location of the first computing device;
determining, based on the user, at least one user preference associated with the second computing device;
and causing, based on the at least one user preference associated with the second computing device, an output of a content item to be modified.
As can be seen with the side-by-side comparison, the present application is a broader version of 11,758,360. More specifically, there a minor difference is the sentence added
As a result, claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of US 11,758,360.
Here, the present application shortens the word usage, but the point remains the same.
This analysis is similarly applied to claims 7, 13, and 19.
Please see the following table for the dependent claims:
18/959,997
US 11,758,360
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2)
The method of claim 1, further comprising causing, by the first computing device, one or more speakers to emit the inaudible audio signal configured to determine one or more other devices proximate to the first computing device.
Claim 1)
A method comprising: causing, by a first computing device, one or more speakers to emit an inaudible audio signal configured to determine one or more other devices proximate to the first computing device
Same concept. Minor word differences.
As a result, claim 2 of the present application is anticipated by claim 5 of US 11,758,360.
This analysis is similarly applied to claim 8, 14, 20.
Claim 3)
The method of claim 1, wherein the first computing device comprises a set top box, a smart speaker, or an entertainment system.
Claim 2)
The method of claim 1, wherein the first computing device comprises a set top box, a smart speaker, or an entertainment system.
No difference.
As a result, claim 3 of the present application is anticipated by claim 2 of US 11,758,360.
This analysis is similarly applied to claims 9, 15, 21.
Claim 4)
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the second computing device is proximate to the location of the first computing device
comprises receiving, by the first computing device and from the second computing device, an indication that the second computing device detected the inaudible audio signal.
Claim 1)
determining, by the first computing device and based on receiving the indication from the second computing device, a user associated with the second computing device is proximate to a geographic location of the first computing device
receiving, from the second computing device and based on the inaudible audio signal, an indication that the second computing device received the inaudible audio signal;
Minor word differences.
As a result, claim 4 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of US 11,758,360.
This analysis is similarly applied to claims 10, 16, 22.
Minor word differences.
As a result, claim 4 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of US 11,758,360.
This analysis is similarly applied to claims 10, 16, 22.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 13, 15, 19 and 21 are rejected on the ground of obvious-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,192,852 in view of Davis, US 8516533 B2 (hereinafter Davis). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Note that the underlined portions signify differences between claims. Please see the following table for the claim 1 analysis (and similarly applied to claims 7, 13, 19):
18/959,997
US 12,192,852
Claim Interpretation
1.
A method comprising:
determining, by a first computing device and based on a second computing device receiving an inaudible audio signal, the second computing device is proximate to a location of the first computing device;
1.
A method comprising: causing, by a first computing device, one or more speakers to emit an inaudible audio signal configured to determine one or more other devices proximate to the first computing device;
receiving, based on the inaudible audio signal, an indication that a second computing device received the inaudible audio signal;
and determining, by the first computing device and based on receiving the indication that the second computing device received the inaudible audio signal, the second computing device is proximate to a geographic location of the first computing device
As can be seen with the side-by-side comparison, the present application substantially includes the subject matter of US 12,192,852. More specifically, 12,192,852 is a more specific than the present application with the underlined claim language.
Here, the present application shortens the word usage, but the point remains the same.
This analysis is similarly applied to claims 7, 13, 19.
US 12,192,852 discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach determining a user associated with the second computing device; and causing, based on a user preference associated with the user, modification to an output of a content item.
However, Davis teaches determining a user associated with the second computing device; (Davis; col. 10, lines 42-45 - - teaches two users have cell phones registered with a family TiVo system. Each may have their own TiVo profile including, e.g., preferences, viewing history, video recordings, season passes, etc. Davis teaches that each phone/user in a household is associated with an individual profile).
and causing, based on a user preference associated with the user, modification to an output of a content item. (Davis; col 13, lines 31-35 - - teaches once a user is detected near the TV, it may identify what video programming may be of most interest, e.g., a current LPGA golf tournament. The television can automatically present such programming to Jane while she waits. When Jane leaves and John Smith sits down, the television may similarly tune to CNBC, thus modifying the output).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Davis into the invention of US 12,192,852 to include the feature of determining a user associated with the second computing device; and causing, based on a user preference associated with the user, modification to an output of a content item, in order to leverage an existing multi-user household profile framework to determine which specific individual’s stored content preferences should govern the modification once that individual’s device is detected as proximate, improving the system’s ability to tailor the content presentation to the specific person detected nearby, rather than applying an undifferentiated or default modification regardless of which household member is present (see Davis, col. 10, lines 31-35).
Please see the following table for the dependent claims:
18/959,997
US 12,192,852
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2)
The method of claim 1, further comprising causing, by the first computing device, one or more speakers to emit the inaudible audio signal configured to determine one or more other devices proximate to the first computing device.
Claim 1)
causing, by a first computing device, one or more speakers to emit an inaudible audio signal configured to determine one or more other devices proximate to the first computing device
Same concept. Minor word differences.
As a result, claim 2 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of US 12,192,852.
This analysis is similarly applied to claim 7, 13, 19.
Claim 3)
The method of claim 1, wherein the first computing device comprises a set top box, a smart speaker, or an entertainment system.
Claim 2)
The method of claim 1, wherein the first computing device comprises a set top box, a smart speaker, or an entertainment system.
No difference.
As a result, claim 3 of the present application is anticipated by claim 2 of US 12,192,852.
This analysis is similarly applied to claims 9, 15, 21.
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 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.
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 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis, US 8516533 B2 (hereinafter Davis), in view of Lewis, US 20180191788 A1 (hereinafter Lewis).
Regarding claim 1, Davis teaches determining a user associated with the second computing device; (Davis; col. 10, lines 42-45 - - teaches two users have cell phones registered with a family TiVo system. Each may have their own TiVo profile including, e.g., preferences, viewing history, video recordings, season passes, etc. Davis teaches that each phone/user in a household is associated with an individual profile).
and causing, based on a user preference associated with the user, modification to an output of a content item. (Davis; col 13, lines 31-35 - - teaches once a user is detected near the TV, it may identify what video programming may be of most interest, e.g., a current LPGA golf tournament. The television can automatically present such programming to Jane while she waits. When Jane leaves and John Smith sits down, the television may similarly tune to CNBC, thus modifying the output).
Davis fails to teach a method comprising: determining, by a first computing device and based on a second computing device receiving an inaudible audio signal, the second computing device is proximate to a location of the first computing device;
However, Lewis teaches a method comprising: determining, by a first computing device and based on a second computing device receiving an inaudible audio signal, the second computing device is proximate to a location of the first computing device; (Lewis; para. 66 - - teaches the interface management component 140 can instruct a first computing device that receives the input audio signal to transmit a sub-audible wave (interpreted as inaudible audio signal) to identify other computing devices within a threshold distance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lewis into the invention of Davis to include the feature of determining, by a first computing device and based on a second computing device receiving an inaudible audio signal, the second computing device is proximate to a location of the first computing device, in order to substitute Lewis’s known inaudible audio signal based proximity sensing technique for one of the interchangeable proximity sensing techniques Davis itself already contemplates (e.g., phone location tracking), improving the precision with which Davis’s system determines that a specific user’s phone (and thus that user’s profile) is proximate to the television or home entertainment system, rather than relying on coarser data alone (see Lewis para. 66).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Davis and Lewis teach the method of claim 1. The combination of Davis and Lewis further teaches, causing, by the first computing device, one or more speakers to emit the inaudible audio signal configured to determine one or more other devices proximate to the first computing device. (Lewis; para. 66 - - teaches the interface management component 140 can instruct a first computing device that receives the input audio signal to transmit a sub-audible wave to identify other computing devices within a threshold distance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lewis into the invention of Davis and Lewis to include the feature of causing, by the first computing device, one or more speakers to emit the inaudible audio signal configured to determine one or more other devices proximate to the first computing device, in order to substitute Lewis’s known inaudible audio signal based proximity sensing technique for one of the interchangeable proximity sensing techniques Davis itself already contemplates (e.g., phone location tracking), improving the precision with which Davis’s system determines that a specific user’s phone (and thus that user’s profile) is proximate to the television or home entertainment system, rather than relying on coarser data alone (see Lewis para. 66).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Davis and Lewis teach the method of claim 1. The combination of Davis and Lewis further teaches wherein the first computing device comprises a set top box, a smart speaker, or an entertainment system. (Lewis; para. 76 - - teaches one or more computing devices 150 may be for example a television mounted to the wall; a desktop computing device; a home speaker; or a surround sound speaker system (television or home speaker interpreted as an entertainment device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lewis into the invention of Davis and Lewis to include the feature of wherein the first computing device comprises a set top box, a smart speaker, or an entertainment system, in order to implement Davis’s television/DVR based first computing device using an art recognized, commercially available device category already established as suitable for this role, improving the practicality and ease of implementation of Davis’s system by relying on standard consumer entertainment hardware rather than an unspecified computing program (see Lewis; para. 76).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Davis and Lewis teach the method of claim 1. The combination of Davis and Lewis further teaches wherein determining the second computing device is proximate to the location of the first computing device comprises receiving, by the first computing device and from the second computing device, an indication that the second computing device detected the inaudible audio signal. (Lewis; para. 66 - - teaches if the second computing device can detect the sub-audible wave (or ultrasonic wave), then the second computing device can transmit a second sub-audible wave (or ultrasonic wave) in response). The first computing device can then receive the response from the second computing device to determine that the first and second computing devices are within a threshold distance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lewis into the invention of Davis to include the feature of wherein determining the second computing device is proximate to the location of the first computing device comprises receiving, by the first computing device and from the second computing device, an indication that the second computing device detected the inaudible audio signal, in order to substitute Lewis’s known inaudible audio signal based proximity sensing technique for one of the interchangeable proximity sensing techniques Davis itself already contemplates (e.g., phone location tracking), improving the precision with which Davis’s system determines that a specific user’s phone (and thus that user’s profile) is proximate to the television or home entertainment system, rather than relying on coarser data alone (see Lewis para. 66).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Davis and Lewis teach the method of claim 1. The combination of Davis and Lewis further teaches wherein the modification to the output of the content item comprises at least one of a modification of a volume level for the content item, a modification of a closed captioning display for the content item, causing presentation of a second content item, or a modification of an advertisement in the output of the content item. (Davis; col. 13, lines 32-35 - - teaches the television can automatically present such programming to Jane while she waits. When Jane leaves and John Smith sits down, the television may similarly tune to CNBC. Davis teaches once a proximate user’s profile is identified, the television “automatically presents” a different program of interest to that user, interpreted as causing presentation of a second content item).
Regarding claim 7, Davis teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: (Davis; col. 61, lines 12-14 - - teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium containing software instructions that, if executed by a processor-equipped phone, cause the phone to perform acts including).
determine a user associated with the second computing device; (Davis; col. 10, lines 42-45 - - teaches two users have cell phones registered with a family TiVo system. Each may have their own TiVo profile including, e.g., preferences, viewing history, video recordings, season passes, etc. Davis teaches that each phone/user in a household is associated with an individual profile).
and causing, based on a user preference associated with the user, modification to an output of a content item. (Davis; col 13, lines 31-35 - - teaches once a user is detected near the TV, it may identify what video programming may be of most interest, e.g., a current LPGA golf tournament. The television can automatically present such programming to Jane while she waits. When Jane leaves and John Smith sits down, the television may similarly tune to CNBC, thus modifying the output).
Davis fails to clearly specify determine, based on a second computing device receiving an inaudible audio signal, the second computing device is proximate to a location of a first computing device comprising the at least one processor;
However, Lewis teaches determine, based on a second computing device receiving an inaudible audio signal, the second computing device is proximate to a location of a first computing device comprising the at least one processor; (Lewis; para. 66 - - teaches the interface management component 140 can instruct a first computing device that receives the input audio signal to transmit a sub-audible wave (interpreted as inaudible audio signal) to identify other computing devices within a threshold distance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lewis into the invention of Davis to include the feature of determining, by a first computing device and based on a second computing device receiving an inaudible audio signal, the second computing device is proximate to a location of the first computing device, in order to substitute Lewis’s known inaudible audio signal based proximity sensing technique for one of the interchangeable proximity sensing techniques Davis itself already contemplates (e.g., phone location tracking), improving the precision with which Davis’s system determines that a specific user’s phone (and thus that user’s profile) is proximate to the television or home entertainment system, rather than relying on coarser data alone (see Lewis para. 66).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Davis and Lewis teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 7. The combination of Davis and Lewis further teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to cause one or more speakers to emit the inaudible audio signal configured to determine one or more other devices proximate to the first computing device. (Lewis; para. 66 - - teaches the interface management component 140 can instruct a first computing device that receives the input audio signal to transmit a sub-audible wave to identify other computing devices within a threshold distance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lewis into the invention of Davis and Lewis to include the feature wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to cause one or more speakers to emit the inaudible audio signal configured to determine one or more other devices proximate to the first computing device, in order to substitute Lewis’s known inaudible audio signal based proximity sensing technique for one of the interchangeable proximity sensing techniques Davis itself already contemplates (e.g., phone location tracking), improving the precision with which Davis’s system determines that a specific user’s phone (and thus that user’s profile) is proximate to the television or home entertainment system, rather than relying on coarser data alone (see Lewis para. 66).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Davis and Lewis teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 7. The combination of Davis and Lewis further teaches wherein the first computing device comprises a set top box, a smart speaker, or an entertainment system. (Lewis; para. 76 - - teaches one or more computing devices 150 may be for example a television mounted to the wall; a desktop computing device; a home speaker; or a surround sound speaker system (television or home speaker interpreted as an entertainment device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lewis into the invention of Davis and Lewis to include the feature of wherein the first computing device comprises a set top box, a smart speaker, or an entertainment system, in order to implement Davis’s television/DVR based first computing device using an art recognized, commercially available device category already established as suitable for this role, improving the practicality and ease of implementation of Davis’s system by relying on standard consumer entertainment hardware rather than an unspecified computing program (see Lewis; para. 76).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Davis and Lewis teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 7. The combination of Davis and Lewis further teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to determine the second computing device is proximate to the location of the first computing device comprising the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to receive, from the second computing device, an indication that the second computing device detected the inaudible audio signal. (Lewis; para. 66 - - teaches if the second computing device can detect the sub-audible wave (or ultrasonic wave), then the second computing device can transmit a second sub-audible wave (or ultrasonic wave) in response). The first computing device can then receive the response from the second computing device to determine that the first and second computing devices are within a threshold distance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lewis into the invention of Davis to include the feature of wherein the processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to determine the second computing device is proximate to the location of the first computing device comprising the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to receive, from the second computing device, an indication that the second computing device detected the inaudible audio signal, in order to substitute Lewis’s known inaudible audio signal based proximity sensing technique for one of the interchangeable proximity sensing techniques Davis itself already contemplates (e.g., phone location tracking), improving the precision with which Davis’s system determines that a specific user’s phone (and thus that user’s profile) is proximate to the television or home entertainment system, rather than relying on coarser data alone (see Lewis para. 66).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Davis and Lewis teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 7. The combination of Davis and Lewis further teaches wherein the modification to the output of the content item comprises at least one of a modification of a volume level for the content item, a modification of a closed captioning display for the content item, causing presentation of a second content item, or a modification of an advertisement in the output of the content item. (Davis; col. 13, lines 32-35 - - teaches the television can automatically present such programming to Jane while she waits. When Jane leaves and John Smith sits down, the television may similarly tune to CNBC. Davis teaches once a proximate user’s profile is identified, the television “automatically presents” a different program of interest to that user, interpreted as causing presentation of a second content item).
Regarding claim 13, Davis teaches a first computing device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the first computing device to: (Davis; col. 62, lines 19-21 - - teaches a phone, including a processor, a memory, a sensor, and a screen, the memory containing software instructions configuring the phone to perform acts including)
determine a user associated with the second computing device; (Davis; col. 10, lines 42-45 - - teaches two users have cell phones registered with a family TiVo system. Each may have their own TiVo profile including, e.g., preferences, viewing history, video recordings, season passes, etc. Davis teaches that each phone/user in a household is associated with an individual profile).
and causing, based on a user preference associated with the user, modification to an output of a content item. (Davis; col 13, lines 31-35 - - teaches once a user is detected near the TV, it may identify what video programming may be of most interest, e.g., a current LPGA golf tournament. The television can automatically present such programming to Jane while she waits. When Jane leaves and John Smith sits down, the television may similarly tune to CNBC, thus modifying the output).
Davis fails to clearly specify determine, based on a second computing device receiving an inaudible audio signal, the second computing device is proximate to a location of the first computing device.
However, Lewis teaches determine, based on a second computing device receiving an inaudible audio signal, the second computing device is proximate to a location of the first computing device; (Lewis; para. 66 - - teaches the interface management component 140 can instruct a first computing device that receives the input audio signal to transmit a sub-audible wave (interpreted as inaudible audio signal) to identify other computing devices within a threshold distance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lewis into the invention of Davis to include the feature of determining, by a first computing device and based on a second computing device receiving an inaudible audio signal, the second computing device is proximate to a location of the first computing device, in order to substitute Lewis’s known inaudible audio signal based proximity sensing technique for one of the interchangeable proximity sensing techniques Davis itself already contemplates (e.g., phone location tracking), improving the precision with which Davis’s system determines that a specific user’s phone (and thus that user’s profile) is proximate to the television or home entertainment system, rather than relying on coarser data alone (see Lewis para. 66).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Davis and Lewis teach the first computing device of claim 13. The combination of Davis and Lewis further teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the first computing device to cause one or more speakers to emit the inaudible audio signal configured to determine one or more other devices proximate to the first computing device. (Lewis; para. 66 - - teaches the interface management component 140 can instruct a first computing device that receives the input audio signal to transmit a sub-audible wave to identify other computing devices within a threshold distance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lewis into the invention of Davis and Lewis to include the feature of wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the first computing device to cause one or more speakers to emit the inaudible audio signal configured to determine one or more other devices proximate to the first computing device, in order to substitute Lewis’s known inaudible audio signal based proximity sensing technique for one of the interchangeable proximity sensing techniques Davis itself already contemplates (e.g., phone location tracking), improving the precision with which Davis’s system determines that a specific user’s phone (and thus that user’s profile) is proximate to the television or home entertainment system, rather than relying on coarser data alone (see Lewis para. 66).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Davis and Lewis teach the first computing device of claim 13. The combination of Davis and Lewis further teaches wherein the first computing device comprises a set top box, a smart speaker, or an entertainment system. (Lewis; para. 76 - - teaches one or more computing devices 150 may be for example a television mounted to the wall; a desktop computing device; a home speaker; or a surround sound speaker system (television or home speaker interpreted as an entertainment device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lewis into the invention of Davis and Lewis to include the feature of wherein the first computing device comprises a set top box, a smart speaker, or an entertainment system, in order to implement Davis’s television/DVR based first computing device using an art recognized, commercially available device category already established as suitable for this role, improving the practicality and ease of implementation of Davis’s system by relying on standard consumer entertainment hardware rather than an unspecified computing program (see Lewis; para. 76).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Davis and Lewis teach the first computing device of claim 13. The combination of Davis and Lewis further teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the first computing device to determine the second computing device is proximate to the location of the first computing device, cause the first computing device to receive, from the second computing device, an indication that the second computing device detected the inaudible audio signal. (Lewis; para. 66 - - teaches if the second computing device can detect the sub-audible wave (or ultrasonic wave), then the second computing device can transmit a second sub-audible wave (or ultrasonic wave) in response). The first computing device can then receive the response from the second computing device to determine that the first and second computing devices are within a threshold distance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lewis into the invention of Davis to include the feature of wherein the processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the first computing device to determine the second computing device is proximate to the location of the first computing device, cause the first computing device to receive, from the second computing device, an indication that the second computing device detected the inaudible audio signal, in order to substitute Lewis’s known inaudible audio signal based proximity sensing technique for one of the interchangeable proximity sensing techniques Davis itself already contemplates (e.g., phone location tracking), improving the precision with which Davis’s system determines that a specific user’s phone (and thus that user’s profile) is proximate to the television or home entertainment system, rather than relying on coarser data alone (see Lewis para. 66).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Davis and Lewis teach the first computing device of claim 13. The combination of Davis and Lewis further teaches wherein the modification to the output of the content item comprises at least one of a modification of a volume level for the content item, a modification of a closed captioning display for the content item, causing presentation of a second content item, or a modification of an advertisement in the output of the content item. (Davis; col. 13, lines 32-35 - - teaches the television can automatically present such programming to Jane while she waits. When Jane leaves and John Smith sits down, the television may similarly tune to CNBC. Davis teaches once a proximate user’s profile is identified, the television “automatically presents” a different program of interest to that user, interpreted as causing presentation of a second content item).
Regarding claim 19, Davis teaches determine a user associated with the second computing device; (Davis; col. 10, lines 42-45 - - teaches two users have cell phones registered with a family TiVo system. Each may have their own TiVo profile including, e.g., preferences, viewing history, video recordings, season passes, etc. Davis teaches that each phone/user in a household is associated with an individual profile).
and causing, based on a user preference associated with the user, modification to an output of a content item; (Davis; col 13, lines 31-35 - - teaches once a user is detected near the TV, it may identify what video programming may be of most interest, e.g., a current LPGA golf tournament. The television can automatically present such programming to Jane while she waits. When Jane leaves and John Smith sits down, the television may similarly tune to CNBC, thus modifying the output).
Davis fails to clearly specify a system comprising: a first computing device configured to: determine, based on a second computing device receiving an inaudible audio signal, the second computing device is proximate to a location of the first computing device; and the second computing device configured to receive the inaudible audio signal.
However, Lewis teaches a system comprising: a first computing device configured to: determine, based on a second computing device receiving an inaudible audio signal, the second computing device is proximate to a location of the first computing device; (Lewis; para. 66 - - teaches the interface management component 140 can instruct a first computing device that receives the input audio signal to transmit a sub-audible wave (interpreted as inaudible audio signal) to identify other computing devices within a threshold distance).
and the second computing device configured to receive the inaudible audio signal. (Lewis; para. 66 - - teaches the second computing device can detect the sub-audible wave (from the first computing device)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lewis into the invention of Davis to include the feature of determining, by a first computing device and based on a second computing device receiving an inaudible audio signal, the second computing device is proximate to a location of the first computing device, in order to substitute Lewis’s known inaudible audio signal based proximity sensing technique for one of the interchangeable proximity sensing techniques Davis itself already contemplates (e.g., phone location tracking), improving the precision with which Davis’s system determines that a specific user’s phone (and thus that user’s profile) is proximate to the television or home entertainment system, rather than relying on coarser data alone (see Lewis para. 66).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Davis and Lewis teach the system of claim 19. The combination of Davis and Lewis further teach wherein the first computing device is further configured to cause one or more speakers to emit the inaudible audio signal configured to determine one or more other devices proximate to the first computing device. (Lewis; para. 66 - - teaches the interface management component 140 can instruct a first computing device that receives the input audio signal to transmit a sub-audible wave to identify other computing devices within a threshold distance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lewis into the invention of Davis and Lewis to include the feature of wherein the first computing device is further configured to cause one or more speakers to emit the inaudible audio signal configured to determine one or more other devices proximate to the first computing device, in order to substitute Lewis’s known inaudible audio signal based proximity sensing technique for one of the interchangeable proximity sensing techniques Davis itself already contemplates (e.g., phone location tracking), improving the precision with which Davis’s system determines that a specific user’s phone (and thus that user’s profile) is proximate to the television or home entertainment system, rather than relying on coarser data alone (see Lewis para. 66).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Davis and Lewis teach the system of claim 19. The combination of Davis and Lewis further teach wherein the first computing device comprises a set top box, a smart speaker, or an entertainment system. (Lewis; para. 76 - - teaches one or more computing devices 150 may be for example a television mounted to the wall; a desktop computing device; a home speaker; or a surround sound speaker system (television or home speaker interpreted as an entertainment device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lewis into the invention of Davis and Lewis to include the feature of wherein the first computing device comprises a set top box, a smart speaker, or an entertainment system, in order to implement Davis’s television/DVR based first computing device using an art recognized, commercially available device category already established as suitable for this role, improving the practicality and ease of implementation of Davis’s system by relying on standard consumer entertainment hardware rather than an unspecified computing program (see Lewis; para. 76).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Davis and Lewis teach the system of claim 19. The combination of Davis and Lewis further teach wherein to determine the second computing device is proximate to the location of the first computing device, the first computing device is configured to receive, from the second computing device, an indication that the second computing device detected the inaudible audio signal. (Lewis; para. 66 - - teaches if the second computing device can detect the sub-audible wave (or ultrasonic wave), then the second computing device can transmit a second sub-audible wave (or ultrasonic wave) in response). The first computing device can then receive the response from the second computing device to determine that the first and second computing devices are within a threshold distance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lewis into the invention of Davis to include the feature of wherein to determine the second computing device is proximate to the location of the first computing device, the first computing device is configured to receive, from the second computing device, an indication that the second computing device detected the inaudible audio signal, in order to substitute Lewis’s known inaudible audio signal based proximity sensing technique for one of the interchangeable proximity sensing techniques Davis itself already contemplates (e.g., phone location tracking), improving the precision with which Davis’s system determines that a specific user’s phone (and thus that user’s profile) is proximate to the television or home entertainment system, rather than relying on coarser data alone (see Lewis para. 66).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Davis and Lewis teach the system of claim 19. The combination of Davis and Lewis further teach wherein the modification to the output of the content item comprises at least one of a modification of a volume level for the content item, a modification of a closed captioning display for the content item, causing presentation of a second content item, or a modification of an advertisement in the output of the content item. (Davis; col. 13, lines 32-35 - - teaches the television can automatically present such programming to Jane while she waits. When Jane leaves and John Smith sits down, the television may similarly tune to CNBC. Davis teaches once a proximate user’s profile is identified, the television “automatically presents” a different program of interest to that user, interpreted as causing presentation of a second content item).
Claims 6, 12, 18, & 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis, US 8516533 B2, in view of Lewis, US 20180191788 A1 as applied to claims 1, 7, 13, & 19, in view of Knauer, US 11330319 B2 (hereinafter Knauer), further in view of Aharony, US 9769624 B1 (hereinafter Aharony).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Davis and Lewis teaches the method of claim 1. The combination of Davis and Lewis fails to teach comprising: receiving, from the second computing device, a first identifier associated with the first computing device and a second identifier associated with the second computing device, wherein the first identifier is associated with the inaudible audio signal; and sending, by the first computing device and to a third computing device, an indication of receiving the first identifier and the second identifier.
However, Knauer teaches comprising: receiving, from the second computing device, a first identifier associated with the first computing device (Knauer; col. 7, lines 26-27 & 30-32 - - teaches upon detecting an inaudible signal, the decoding device (interpreted as the second computing device) may process the inaudible signal to extract a coded identifier. […] the coded identifier may then be provided to a content management system via a wireless communication network).
and a second identifier associated with the second computing device, (Knauer; col. 7, lines 32-36 - - teaches along with the first identifier, supplemental information may also be provided to the content management system along with the coded identifier, such as a time/date data, accelerometer data, geographic data, demographic data, device data, owner data, and so forth (interpreted as second identifiers)).
wherein the first identifier is associated with the inaudible audio signal; (Knauer; col. 7, lines 26-27 - - teaches upon detecting an inaudible signal, the decoding device may process the inaudible signal to extract a coded identifier (interpreted as the first identifier)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Knauer into the invention of Davis and Lewis to include the feature of receiving, from the second computing device, a first identifier associated with the first computing device and a second identifier associated with the second computing device, wherein the first identifier is associated with the inaudible audio signal, in order to provide a known, specific technique for extracting and structuring identifying data from an inaudible signal once device proximity has been established, improving the system’s ability to associate a specific detected device with usable identifying data, rather than merely detecting that some device is proximate (see Knauer; col. 7, lines 26-27).
The combination of Davis, Lewis, and Knauer fails to clearly specify sending, by the first computing device and to a third computing device, an indication of receiving the first identifier and the second identifier.
However, Aharony teaches sending, by the first computing device and to a third computing device, an indication of receiving the first identifier and the second identifier. (Aharony; col. 21, lines 25-30 - - teaches the acknowledgment 508 includes the fine grain copresence token. The transmitting user device may aggregate identifiers of user devices that have responded with an acknowledgment 508 and transmit 510 the identifiers to the copresence server 107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Aharony into the invention of Davis, Lewis, and Knauer to include the feature of sending, by the first computing device and to a third computing device, an indication of receiving the first identifier and the second identifier, in order to apply a known aggregation and forwarding technique for reporting collected device identifiers to a central server, improving the system’s ability to centrally track and act on which devices have been detected as proximate, consistent with Davis’s own reliance on a central TiVo/DVR backend for managing user profiles and presence-based content decisions (see Aharony; col. 21, lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Davis and Lewis teach one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8. The combination of Davis and Lewis fail to teach wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to: receive, from the second computing device, a first identifier associated with the first computing device and a second identifier associated with the second computing device, wherein the first identifier is associated with the inaudible audio signal; and send, to a third computing device, an indication of receiving the first identifier and the second identifier.
However, Knauer teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to: receive, from the second computing device, a first identifier associated with the first computing device (Knauer; col. 7, lines 26-27 & 30-32 - - teaches upon detecting an inaudible signal, the decoding device (interpreted as the second computing device) may process the inaudible signal to extract a coded identifier. […] the coded identifier may then be provided to a content management system via a wireless communication network).
and a second identifier associated with the second computing device, (Knauer; col. 7, lines 32-36 - - teaches along with the first identifier, supplemental information may also be provided to the content management system along with the coded identifier, such as a time/date data, accelerometer data, geographic data, demographic data, device data, owner data, and so forth (interpreted as second identifiers)).
wherein the first identifier is associated with the inaudible audio signal; (Knauer; col. 7, lines 26-27 - - teaches upon detecting an inaudible signal, the decoding device may process the inaudible signal to extract a coded identifier (interpreted as the first identifier)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Knauer into the invention of Davis and Lewis to include the feature of receiving, from the second computing device, a first identifier associated with the first computing device and a second identifier associated with the second computing device, wherein the first identifier is associated with the inaudible audio signal, in order to provide a known, specific technique for extracting and structuring identifying data from an inaudible signal once device proximity has been established, improving the system’s ability to associate a specific detected device with usable identifying data, rather than merely detecting that some device is proximate (see Knauer; col. 7, lines 26-27).
The combination of Davis, Lewis, and Knauer fails to clearly specify sending, by the first computing device and to a third computing device, an indication of receiving the first identifier and the second identifier.
However, Aharony teaches to send, to a third computing device, an indication of receiving the first identifier and the second identifier. (Aharony; col. 21, lines 25-30 - - teaches the acknowledgment 508 includes the fine grain copresence token. The transmitting user device may aggregate identifiers of user devices that have responded with an acknowledgment 508 and transmit 510 the identifiers to the copresence server 107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Aharony into the invention of Davis, Lewis, and Knauer to include the feature of sending, by the first computing device and to a third computing device, an indication of receiving the first identifier and the second identifier, in order to apply a known aggregation and forwarding technique for reporting collected device identifiers to a central server, improving the system’s ability to centrally track and act on which devices have been detected as proximate, consistent with Davis’s own reliance on a central TiVo/DVR backend for managing user profiles and presence-based content decisions (see Aharony; col. 21, lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Davis and Lewis teach the first computing device of claim 13. The combination of Davis and Lewis fail to teach wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the first computing device to: receive, from the second computing device, a first identifier associated with the first computing device and a second identifier associated with the second computing device, wherein the first identifier is associated with the inaudible audio signal; and send, to a third computing device, an indication of receiving the first identifier and the second identifier.
However, Knauer teaches the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the first computing device to: receive, from the second computing device, a first identifier associated with the first computing device (Knauer; col. 7, lines 26-27 & 30-32 - - teaches upon detecting an inaudible signal, the decoding device (interpreted as the second computing device) may process the inaudible signal to extract a coded identifier. […] the coded identifier may then be provided to a content management system via a wireless communication network).
and a second identifier associated with the second computing device, (Knauer; col. 7, lines 32-36 - - teaches along with the first identifier, supplemental information may also be provided to the content management system along with the coded identifier, such as a time/date data, accelerometer data, geographic data, demographic data, device data, owner data, and so forth (interpreted as second identifiers)).
wherein the first identifier is associated with the inaudible audio signal; (Knauer; col. 7, lines 26-27 - - teaches upon detecting an inaudible signal, the decoding device may process the inaudible signal to extract a coded identifier (interpreted as the first identifier)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Knauer into the invention of Davis and Lewis to include the feature of receiving, from the second computing device, a first identifier associated with the first computing device and a second identifier associated with the second computing device, wherein the first identifier is associated with the inaudible audio signal, in order to provide a known, specific technique for extracting and structuring identifying data from an inaudible signal once device proximity has been established, improving the system’s ability to associate a specific detected device with usable identifying data, rather than merely detecting that some device is proximate (see Knauer; col. 7, lines 26-27).
The combination of Davis, Lewis, and Knauer fails to clearly specify to send, to a third computing device, an indication of receiving the first identifier and the second identifier.
However, Aharony teaches to send, to a third computing device, an indication of receiving the first identifier and the second identifier. (Aharony; col. 21, lines 25-30 - - teaches the acknowledgment 508 includes the fine grain copresence token. The transmitting user device may aggregate identifiers of user devices that have responded with an acknowledgment 508 and transmit 510 the identifiers to the copresence server 107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Aharony into the invention of Davis, Lewis, and Knauer to include the feature of sending, by the first computing device and to a third computing device, an indication of receiving the first identifier and the second identifier, in order to apply a known aggregation and forwarding technique for reporting collected device identifiers to a central server, improving the system’s ability to centrally track and act on which devices have been detected as proximate, consistent with Davis’s own reliance on a central TiVo/DVR backend for managing user profiles and presence-based content decisions (see Aharony; col. 21, lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Davis and Lewis teach the system of claim 19. The combination of Davis and Lewis fail to teach wherein the first computing device is further configured to: receive, from the second computing device, a first identifier associated with the first computing device and a second identifier associated with the second computing device, wherein the first identifier is associated with the inaudible audio signal and send, to a third computing device, an indication of receiving the first identifier and the second identifier.
However, Knauer teaches the first computing device is further configured to: receive, from the second computing device, a first identifier associated with the first computing device (Knauer; col. 7, lines 26-27 & 30-32 - - teaches upon detecting an inaudible signal, the decoding device (interpreted as the second computing device) may process the inaudible signal to extract a coded identifier. […] the coded identifier may then be provided to a content management system via a wireless communication network).
and a second identifier associated with the second computing device, (Knauer; col. 7, lines 32-36 - - teaches along with the first identifier, supplemental information may also be provided to the content management system along with the coded identifier, such as a time/date data, accelerometer data, geographic data, demographic data, device data, owner data, and so forth (interpreted as second identifiers)).
wherein the first identifier is associated with the inaudible audio signal (Knauer; col. 7, lines 26-27 - - teaches upon detecting an inaudible signal, the decoding device may process the inaudible signal to extract a coded identifier (interpreted as the first identifier)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Knauer into the invention of Davis and Lewis to include the feature of receiving, from the second computing device, a first identifier associated with the first computing device and a second identifier associated with the second computing device, wherein the first identifier is associated with the inaudible audio signal, in order to provide a known, specific technique for extracting and structuring identifying data from an inaudible signal once device proximity has been established, improving the system’s ability to associate a specific detected device with usable identifying data, rather than merely detecting that some device is proximate (see Knauer; col. 7, lines 26-27).
The combination of Davis, Lewis, and Knauer fails to clearly specify to send, to a third computing device, an indication of receiving the first identifier and the second identifier.
However, Aharony teaches to send, to a third computing device, an indication of receiving the first identifier and the second identifier. (Aharony; col. 21, lines 25-30 - - teaches the acknowledgment 508 includes the fine grain copresence token. The transmitting user device may aggregate identifiers of user devices that have responded with an acknowledgment 508 and transmit 510 the identifiers to the copresence server 107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Aharony into the invention of Davis, Lewis, and Knauer to include the feature of sending, by the first computing device and to a third computing device, an indication of receiving the first identifier and the second identifier, in order to apply a known aggregation and forwarding technique for reporting collected device identifiers to a central server, improving the system’s ability to centrally track and act on which devices have been detected as proximate, consistent with Davis’s own reliance on a central TiVo/DVR backend for managing user profiles and presence-based content decisions (see Aharony; col. 21, lines 25-30).
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
Ezra et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0323162 A1) is relevant prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Ezra discloses mobile device that broadcasts a signal to other mobile devices of the two or more mobile devices. The signal may be wireless, for example using Wifi. The signal may be broadcasted as an audio signal such that the signal is at a frequency that may be broadcasted from the speaker. In some cases the audio signal is at an inaudible frequency, which is inaudible to a human ear, but may still be detected by the microphone.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT whose telephone number is (571)270-1098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 August 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights