DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the communications filed on March 23, 2026. The Applicant’s Amendment and Request for Reconsideration has been received and entered.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 20 have been amended. Claim 21 is newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 USC 101, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth infra.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Particularly, Applicant’s arguments are directed to the instantly amended claims, and are thus moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. To offer further transparency as to Examiner’s interpretation of the claims, the Examiner respectfully argues that Zonoun teaches wherein the recipient device is a terminal destination of the text message (Zonoun: Fig. 1; Col. 2, 37-52 (In the example of FIG. 1, a host (Host A) of Company A will send a packet to a destination host (Host B) of Company B. Host A typically would be a computer (such as a Personal Computer (PC)) coupled to Company A's private network and operated by an employee or agent of Company A. Likewise, Host B is a PC operated by Company B.)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A – Prong One. If the claims fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Step 2A – Prong Two. If the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon, it must then be determined whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, then the claims are directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2B. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be evaluated whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e. “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
In the instant case, claim 1-7 and 21 are directed to a process; claims 8-14 are directed to a machine; and claims 15-20 are directed to a manufacture.
A claim “recites” an abstract idea if there are identifiable limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106. In the instant case, claim 1, and similarly claims 8 and 14, recites the steps of: receiving, from a client corresponding with a first account associated with a message exchange, a first client request to transmit a message to a recipient device; responsive to receiving the first client request, determining, for each of a plurality of providers, a quality score indicating a likelihood that the message delivered by a respective provider will be successfully delivered to the recipient, wherein the recipient is a destination of the message; selecting, among the plurality of providers, a first provider to deliver the message to the recipient based at least on the quality score; and causing, by the message exchange, the text message to be transmitted to the recipient via the first provider -- these claim limitations set forth certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly commercial interactions including advertising, marketing, and sales activities/behaviors.
Additionally, these steps set forth mental processes, particularly concepts performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, including, inter alia, the observation and evaluation of information.
The limitations of the claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Taking the independent claim elements separately, the additional elements of performing the steps via from a client device, with/by a message exchange system, a text message, a recipient device, wherein the recipient device is a terminal destination, and routing providers -- merely implement the abstract idea on a computer environment. Additionally, taking the dependent claim elements separately, the additional elements of the text message comprising one of a short message service (SMS) message or rich communication service (RCS) message also merely implement the abstract idea on a computer environment. Considered in combination, the steps of Applicant’s method add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Thus, claims 1-21 are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding the independent claims, the technical elements of performing via from a client device, with/by a message exchange system, a text message, a recipient device, wherein the recipient device is a terminal destination, and routing providers- merely implement the abstract idea on a computer environment. Additionally, regarding the dependent claims, the technical elements of the text message comprising one of a short message service (SMS) message or rich communication service (RCS) message also merely implement the abstract idea on a computer environment.
When considering the elements and combinations of elements, the claim(s) as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not amount to an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment; the claims merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer; or the claims amounts to nothing more than requiring a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1-21 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zonoun (US Pat No 6,487,172).
As per claim 1, Zonoun teaches receiving, from a client device corresponding with a first account associated with a message exchange system, a first client request to transmit a text message to a recipient device; (Zonoun: Figs. 1 and 2; Col. 3; Lns. 12-65 (Thus, when the bidding algorithm of the present invention is utilized, the bidding algorithm posts (broadcasts) a request for a bid from Company A to its border gates A1-A4. The request can take many forms, but an example of a “request for a bid” broadcast 11 is shown in FIG. 2. The broadcast 11 is comprised of a requester's (sender's) identification (ID) field 12, a destination ID field 13 and a request metric field 14, which is comprised of criteria for obtaining a routing metric field 14. The request metric field 14 includes information about the data packet(s) being sent and criteria for the type of routing metric values being sought. In the example and in the practice of the preferred embodiment, two types of metric values are typically being sought. One value sought is the actual cost of sending the packet(s) and the other is the amount of delay in transporting the packet(s) to the destination.); Col. 7; Lns. 12-65 (However, if the particular BG is serving the originating host (shown in block 55), the metric is collected in the metric table for the host (shown in block 60). If multiple valid table entries are present, the algorithm uses a particular decision-making parameter based on the received metric values for selecting the most desirable path. The desirable route is selected (shown in block 62), followed by the sending of the data packet or packets through the selected route (shown in block 63). In the preferred embodiment, cost and delay values are included within the routing metric. The cost value is the cost in monetary terms (dollars, for example) in sending the packet, while delay is measured in terms of time (for example, seconds). Thus, the host can determine which path provides the most cost savings or which path provides the least delay, in order to select one winning bid as the desired path. This choice allows distinguishing the most effective path for a given type of data being sent across the network. For example, text data can be sent by the less costly path, while telephony may opt for the path with the least delay.); Col. 4; Ln. 19-65)
responsive to receiving the first client request, determining, for each of a plurality of routing providers, a quality score indicating a likelihood that the text message delivered by a respective routing provider will be successfully delivered to the recipient device, wherein the recipient device is a terminal destination of the text message (Zonoun: Fig. 3; Claim 1 (receiving at least one bid in response to the broadcast request, the bid including a routing metric associated with the transfer of the packet to the destination through a particular path); Col. 4; Ln. 19-65 (FIG. 3 shows a metric entry table (metric table) 15, generated by the algorithm and which table 15 tabulates the values received from the returning bid metrics. As noted, the table establishes entries for each of the border gates. Thus, the A1-A4 entries are listed. In the example table 15, the cost through AS3 is shown as $0.02, while through AS4 is $0.01. However, the delay is less through AS3 when compared to AS4 (0.2 sec versus 0.4 sec.). Thus, table 15 informs the originator that the route through A4 is half as costly, but the route through A3 is twice as fast.); Fig. 1; Col. 2, 37-52 (In the example of FIG. 1, a host (Host A) of Company A will send a packet to a destination host (Host B) of Company B. Host A typically would be a computer (such as a Personal Computer (PC)) coupled to Company A's private network and operated by an employee or agent of Company A. Likewise, Host B is a PC operated by Company B.))
selecting, among the plurality of routing providers, a first routing provider to deliver the text message to the recipient device based at least on the quality score; and (Zonoun: Fig. 7; Claim 1 (selecting a desired path to the destination based on the received routing metric.); Col. 7; Lns. 12-65 (However, if the particular BG is serving the originating host (shown in block 55), the metric is collected in the metric table for the host (shown in block 60). If multiple valid table entries are present, the algorithm uses a particular decision-making parameter based on the received metric values for selecting the most desirable path. The desirable route is selected (shown in block 62), followed by the sending of the data packet or packets through the selected route (shown in block 63). In the preferred embodiment, cost and delay values are included within the routing metric. The cost value is the cost in monetary terms (dollars, for example) in sending the packet, while delay is measured in terms of time (for example, seconds). Thus, the host can determine which path provides the most cost savings or which path provides the least delay, in order to select one winning bid as the desired path. This choice allows distinguishing the most effective path for a given type of data being sent across the network. For example, text data can be sent by the less costly path, while telephony may opt for the path with the least delay.))
causing, by the message exchange system, the text message to be transmitted to the recipient device via the first routing provider. (Zonoun: Fig. 7; Col. 7; Lns. 12-65 (If multiple valid table entries are present, the algorithm uses a particular decision-making parameter based on the received metric values for selecting the most desirable path. The desirable route is selected (shown in block 62), followed by the sending of the data packet or packets through the selected route (shown in block 63)))
As per claim 6, Zonoun teaches further comprising:
receiving, from a second client device associated with the message exchange system, a second client request to configure criteria identifying client preferences for text message delivery for a plurality of text message types, each of the plurality of text message types corresponding to a classification of text messages based on content of a respective text message, (Zonoun: Figs. 1 and 2; Col. 3; Lns. 12-65 (Thus, when the bidding algorithm of the present invention is utilized, the bidding algorithm posts (broadcasts) a request for a bid from Company A to its border gates A1-A4. The request can take many forms, but an example of a “request for a bid” broadcast 11 is shown in FIG. 2. The broadcast 11 is comprised of a requester's (sender's) identification (ID) field 12, a destination ID field 13 and a request metric field 14, which is comprised of criteria for obtaining a routing metric field 14. The request metric field 14 includes information about the data packet(s) being sent and criteria for the type of routing metric values being sought. In the example and in the practice of the preferred embodiment, two types of metric values are typically being sought. One value sought is the actual cost of sending the packet(s) and the other is the amount of delay in transporting the packet(s) to the destination.); Col. 7; Lns. 12-65 (However, if the particular BG is serving the originating host (shown in block 55), the metric is collected in the metric table for the host (shown in block 60). If multiple valid table entries are present, the algorithm uses a particular decision-making parameter based on the received metric values for selecting the most desirable path. The desirable route is selected (shown in block 62), followed by the sending of the data packet or packets through the selected route (shown in block 63). In the preferred embodiment, cost and delay values are included within the routing metric. The cost value is the cost in monetary terms (dollars, for example) in sending the packet, while delay is measured in terms of time (for example, seconds). Thus, the host can determine which path provides the most cost savings or which path provides the least delay, in order to select one winning bid as the desired path. This choice allows distinguishing the most effective path for a given type of data being sent across the network. For example, text data can be sent by the less costly path, while telephony may opt for the path with the least delay.); Col. 4; Ln. 19-65)
wherein selecting, among the plurality of routing providers, the first routing provider to deliver the text message to the recipient device is further based at least on the criteria. (Zonoun: Fig. 7; Claim 1 (selecting a desired path to the destination based on the received routing metric.); Col. 7; Lns. 12-65 (However, if the particular BG is serving the originating host (shown in block 55), the metric is collected in the metric table for the host (shown in block 60). If multiple valid table entries are present, the algorithm uses a particular decision-making parameter based on the received metric values for selecting the most desirable path. The desirable route is selected (shown in block 62), followed by the sending of the data packet or packets through the selected route (shown in block 63). In the preferred embodiment, cost and delay values are included within the routing metric. The cost value is the cost in monetary terms (dollars, for example) in sending the packet, while delay is measured in terms of time (for example, seconds). Thus, the host can determine which path provides the most cost savings or which path provides the least delay, in order to select one winning bid as the desired path. This choice allows distinguishing the most effective path for a given type of data being sent across the network. For example, text data can be sent by the less costly path, while telephony may opt for the path with the least delay.))
As per claims 8 and 13, these claims are substantially similar to claims 1 and 6, respectively, and are therefore rejected in the same manner as these claims, as set forth above.
As per claims 15 and 19, these claims are substantially similar to claims 1 and 6, respectively, and are therefore rejected in the same manner as these claims, as set forth above.
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 of this title, 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 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zonoun (US Pat No 6,487,172) in view of Nowack (US 2014/0031070)
As per claim 2, Zonoun teaches wherein determining, for each of the plurality of routing providers, the quality score indicating the likelihood that the text message delivered by the respective routing provider will be successfully delivered to the recipient device comprises: (Zonoun: Fig. 3; Claim 1; Col. 4; Ln. 19-65)
Zonoun does not explicitly disclose the following known technique which is taught by Nowack:
determining feedback data describing an actual performance of the respective routing provider in delivering previous text messages, wherein the quality score is determined using the feedback data. (Nowack: [0037] (tracking message delivery through a processed coded identifier S230, and generating a score for message delivery S240. The score reflects the operational health of messaging communication and more preferably a messaging routing option. The score is obtained through the transformation of service communication to a trackable user interaction. Some embodiments of the method, in a sense, transparently crowdsources communication testing to users of the messaging-supported service. The score is preferably related to specific routing options and may be used in the determination of subsequent routing options such as in the method described above.); [0043] (Block S240, which includes generating a score for message delivery, functions to use tracked message delivery across the message-supported service to determine a state of message communication. The score preferably relates to the quality of message deliverability. The message-supported service can additionally selectively use different message delivery options to generate a score for particular communication options. For example, the service can track what routing option is used for sending the coded identifier, and message delivery is tracked for that particular routing option.); [0028])
This known technique is applicable to the method of Zonoun as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to sending data.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that applying the known technique of Nowack would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved method. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Moran to the teachings of Zonoun would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such feedback features into similar methods. Further, applying the determining feedback data describing an actual performance of the respective routing provider in delivering previous text messages, wherein the quality score is determined using the feedback data to the teachings of Zonoun would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would ensure the integrity and reliability of communicating a message. (Nowack: [0003]-[0004]])
As per claim 3, Zonoun/Nowack teach wherein the feedback data identifies (i) whether the previous text messages were successfully received by recipient devices. (Nowack: [0037] (tracking message delivery through a processed coded identifier S230, and generating a score for message delivery S240. The score reflects the operational health of messaging communication and more preferably a messaging routing option. The score is obtained through the transformation of service communication to a trackable user interaction. Some embodiments of the method, in a sense, transparently crowdsources communication testing to users of the messaging-supported service. The score is preferably related to specific routing options and may be used in the determination of subsequent routing options such as in the method described above.); [0043] (Block S240, which includes generating a score for message delivery, functions to use tracked message delivery across the message-supported service to determine a state of message communication. The score preferably relates to the quality of message deliverability. The message-supported service can additionally selectively use different message delivery options to generate a score for particular communication options. For example, the service can track what routing option is used for sending the coded identifier, and message delivery is tracked for that particular routing option.); [0028])
The motivation for applying the known techniques of Nowack to the teachings of Zonoun is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of Claim 2.
As per claim 4, Zonoun/Nowack teach wherein the feedback data further identifies (ii) whether the previous text messages resulted in a specified action by recipients associated with the recipient devices. (Nowack: [0028] (As shown in FIG. 4, a variation of the preferred embodiment may include providing a user feedback interface Block S123, which functions to enable reports to be filed through an application programming interface (API) or a visual interface. The interface preferably enables issues with the delivery of a particular message to be logged. As shown in FIGS. 5A and 5B, a user may select a message and file a report. The filed report preferably updates the delivery report, which in turn will be factored into the optimality assessment for future messages. Similarly, reports may be filed programmatically using an API. This preferably enables developers of messaging applications to provide their own user-facing interface. The API is preferably used to collect message, voice, and/or video quality from a user (e.g., a user of a service or a developer). In one variation, a developer may integrate a poll during an interaction with an application, preferably at the end of the interaction. The user response to the poll is then added to a delivery report using the feedback API.))
The motivation for applying the known techniques of Nowack to the teachings of Zonoun is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of Claim 2.
As per claim 5, Zonoun/Nowack teach wherein the text message comprises one of a short message service (SMS) message or rich communication service (RCS) message. (Nowack: [0022] (Telephony messaging preferably includes SMS)
The motivation for applying the known techniques of Nowack to the teachings of Zonoun is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of Claim 2.
As per claim 7, Zonoun/Nowack teach wherein the second client request is further to configure the criteria identifying the client preferences for the text message delivery with respect to geographic regions in which the text messages are transmitted. (Nowack: [0023] (The routing options may be characterized by different service providers, networks, geographic locations, physical machines, resource addresses, contractual agreements, communication protocols, time-dependent quality/performance properties, and/or any other suitable distinguishing characteristics of message routing node.); [0034] (geographic region); [0043])
The motivation for applying the known techniques of Nowack to the teachings of Zonoun is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of Claim 2.
As per claims 9-12, and 14, these claims are substantially similar to claims 2-5, and 7, respectively, and are therefore rejected in the same manner as these claims, as set forth above.
As per claims 16-18, and 20, these claims are substantially similar to claims 2-5, and 7, respectively, and are therefore rejected in the same manner as these claims, as set forth above.
As per claim 21, Zonoun teaches determining, for a first routing provider of the plurality of routing providers, a first quality score using first feedback data describing an actual performance of the first routing provider in delivering first previous text messages, . . . (Zonoun: Fig. 3; Claim 1 (receiving at least one bid in response to the broadcast request, the bid including a routing metric associated with the transfer of the packet to the destination through a particular path); Col. 4; Ln. 19-65 (FIG. 3 shows a metric entry table (metric table) 15, generated by the algorithm and which table 15 tabulates the values received from the returning bid metrics. As noted, the table establishes entries for each of the border gates. Thus, the A1-A4 entries are listed. In the example table 15, the cost through AS3 is shown as $0.02, while through AS4 is $0.01. However, the delay is less through AS3 when compared to AS4 (0.2 sec versus 0.4 sec.). Thus, table 15 informs the originator that the route through A4 is half as costly, but the route through A3 is twice as fast.); Fig. 1; Col. 2, 37-52 (In the example of FIG. 1, a host (Host A) of Company A will send a packet to a destination host (Host B) of Company B. Host A typically would be a computer (such as a Personal Computer (PC)) coupled to Company A's private network and operated by an employee or agent of Company A. Likewise, Host B is a PC operated by Company B.)),
Zonoun does not explicitly disclose the following known technique which is taught by Nowack:
wherein the first feedback data identifies (i) whether the first previous text messages were successfully received by recipient devices, and (ii) whether the first previous text messages resulted in a specified action by recipients associated with the recipient devices; and determining, for a second routing provider of the plurality of routing providers, a second quality score using second feedback data describing an actual performance of the second routing provider in delivering second previous text messages. (Nowack: [0037] (tracking message delivery through a processed coded identifier S230, and generating a score for message delivery S240. The score reflects the operational health of messaging communication and more preferably a messaging routing option. The score is obtained through the transformation of service communication to a trackable user interaction. Some embodiments of the method, in a sense, transparently crowdsources communication testing to users of the messaging-supported service. The score is preferably related to specific routing options and may be used in the determination of subsequent routing options such as in the method described above.); [0043] (Block S240, which includes generating a score for message delivery, functions to use tracked message delivery across the message-supported service to determine a state of message communication. The score preferably relates to the quality of message deliverability. The message-supported service can additionally selectively use different message delivery options to generate a score for particular communication options. For example, the service can track what routing option is used for sending the coded identifier, and message delivery is tracked for that particular routing option.); [0028] (As shown in FIG. 4, a variation of the preferred embodiment may include providing a user feedback interface Block S123, which functions to enable reports to be filed through an application programming interface (API) or a visual interface. The interface preferably enables issues with the delivery of a particular message to be logged. As shown in FIGS. 5A and 5B, a user may select a message and file a report. The filed report preferably updates the delivery report, which in turn will be factored into the optimality assessment for future messages. Similarly, reports may be filed programmatically using an API. This preferably enables developers of messaging applications to provide their own user-facing interface. The API is preferably used to collect message, voice, and/or video quality from a user (e.g., a user of a service or a developer). In one variation, a developer may integrate a poll during an interaction with an application, preferably at the end of the interaction. The user response to the poll is then added to a delivery report using the feedback API.))
The motivation for applying the known techniques of Nowack to the teachings of Zonoun is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of Claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Moran (US PGP 2002/0177448) -- produce various tabular reports and/or graphs depicting various performance criteria for the service providers that are evaluated
Das (US PGP 2010/0228641) -- online advertising system integrates third party agents to permit the third party agents to participate in auctions to bid on a per opportunity basis.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER V LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-4778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5PM 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, JEFFREY A. SMITH can be reached at (571)272-6763. 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.
/JENNIFER V LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights