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 (IDS) submitted on 20 October 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The claim language in Independent Claims 1, 16, and 19 reciting “wherein each segment of the plurality of segments corresponds to a different quality level and a different content encryption mode” amounts to digitally printed matter that exists upon a supporting product (i.e., they reflect the contents of the manifest file). However, the above limitations fail to recite any functional relationship with respect to the associated product as nothing in the above limitations performs any functions with respect to the claimed manifest. As such, since there is no functional relationship between the printed matter (i.e., the aforementioned segments) and the associated product (i.e., the manifest), the printed matter is owed no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05(I). Similarly, Claims 3 and 10 amount to non-functional descriptive matter and do not carry patentable weight.
Statutory Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,375,763 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 5-16, and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,375,763 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘763 are narrower and clearly anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,743,538 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘538 are narrower and clearly anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-16, and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-49 of U.S. Patent No. 11,438,659 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘659 are narrower and clearly anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-16, and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-45 of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,606 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘606 are narrower and clearly anticipate the claims of the instant application.
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 1-3, 8-10, 12, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the concept of creating a new schedule (i.e., manifest), which constitutes a Mental Process that could be performed in a Human Mind. Following the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines, we analyze the claims:
STEP 1: IS THE CLAIM TO A PROCESS, MACHINE, MANUFACTURE, OR COMPOSITION OF MATTER?
YES. Claims 1- 15 are directed to a machine, Claims 16-18 are directed to a method, and Claims 19-20 are directed to a composition of matter.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: DOES THE CLAIM RECITE AN ABSTRACT IDEA, LAW OF NATURE, OR NATURAL PHENOMENON?
YES. Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 16 and 19) recite “generating a new version of a disparate live media output stream manifest based on insertion of an indicator, of a segment from a plurality of segments of at least one of a pre-encoded media asset or a live input stream, into the disparate live media output stream manifest” which under BRI may amount to amending a manifest file by hand. Owing to the broadness and generality of the claim, this may amount to manually adding a new entry to the manifest file, which amounts to a mental process/activity that may be performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper (or its digital equivalents).
Claims 2, 17, and 20 recite: “remove DRM (digital rights management) key references from the disparate live media output stream manifest…” which amounts to mental/manual activities of deleting/redacting information from the manifest file.
Claim 8 recites “to generate the disparate live media output stream manifest based on a playout schedule and content view demographics” which are evaluative and judgment actions that may be performed in the human mind.
Claim 9 recites “to replace the non-programming content and the programming content included in a broadcast schedule with an alternate non-programming content and an alternate programming content” which amounts to the mental/manual activity of replacing entries in a manifest with new entries.
Claim 12 recites: “monitor real-time or near real-time content viewing demographics” and “schedule the pre-encoded media asset based on real-time or near-real-time content viewing demographics” which amount to observation, evaluation, and judgment actions that may be performed in the human mind.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: DOES THE CLAIM RECITE ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS THAT INTEGRATE THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION?
NO. Claims 1, 16, and 19 recite the additional limitations of “wherein each segment of the plurality of segments corresponds to a different quality level and a different content encryption mode”, which as above, are not given patentable weight as being directed to non-functional descriptive material. Even arguendo that such limitations should be given patentable weight, such limitations merely describe data that is being analyzed and considered in the mental process of generating the new manifest and as such do not materially integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, Claims 1, 16, and 19 recites processors and memories for storing executable instructions. However, they are recited at such a high level of generality that they amount to mere recitation of computer implementation of the abstract ideas that amounts to merely reciting the words ‘apply it’ or an equivalent.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the segment corresponds to a broadcast content segment encoded in a first encoding format”. However, such a recitation merely describes the data included in the generated manifest and does not materially integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 8-9 recites additional limitations describing how the content to be included in the schedules are selected, but these amount to describing data that is observed and evaluated, and do not materially integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the disparate live media output stream manifest includes at least one of a non-programming content indicator or an overlay indicator” which merely describes information included in the generated manifest and does not materially integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 12 recites that the monitored viewing demographics are received from a media player. However, this is an extra-solution data collection activity.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the disparate live media output stream manifest is created for a defined geographical location” which as written amounts to an intended purpose, and at best amounts to specifying data that is to be evaluated as part of the mental process.
YES. Claims 4-7, 11, 13-14, and 18 recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: DOES THE CLAIM RECITE ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS THAT AMOUNT TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION?
NO. The aforementioned additional elements of Claims 1, 3, 8-10, 12, 15, 16, and 19 that are recited at such a high level of generality to amount to implementation via generic computing components that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) notes that Receiving/transmitting data over a network are recognized by the courts to be computer functions that are well-understood routine, and convention when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. As such, Claims 1-3, 8-10, 12, 15-17, and 19-20 are not considered to recite eligible Subject Matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 10-11, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al. (2014/0150019 A1) (as provided by the IDS submitted on 20 October 2025, hereinafter Ma),
Regarding Claim 1, Ma discloses a system, [Figs. 1-3] comprising:
at least on memory configured to store instructions; [Figs 1-4; 0032: computing devices may include memory with computer program instructions] and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to perform operations, [Figs 1-4; 0032: computing devices may include memory with computer program instructions and processors for executing the instructions] comprising:
generating a new version of a disparate live media output stream manifest based on insertion of an indicator, of a segment from a plurality of segments of at least one of a pre- encoded media asset or a live input stream, into the disparate live media output stream manifest, wherein each segment of the plurality of segments corresponds to a different quality level and a different content encryption mode. [Fig. 5; 0005, 0031: methods for dynamically inserting metadata into segments and manifest files being generated in real-time, where live stream processor detects ad replacement/insertion opportunities; 0033: live feed is segmented and encapsulated in different formats, etc., where manifest indicates the segment locations for each encoding; 0034-39: upon detection of cue tones (inserted indicators) processor 102 inserts metadata into the manifest; 0069-74: manifest is updated and provided to clients for retrieval]
Regarding Claim 3, Ma discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Ma discloses wherein the segment corresponds to a broadcast content segment encoded in a first encoding format of the new version of the disparate live media output stream manifest. [0033: live feed is segmented and encapsulated in different formats, etc., where manifest indicates the segment locations for each encoding]
Regarding Claim 10, Ma discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Ma discloses wherein the disparate live media output stream manifest includes at least one of a non-programming content indicator or an overlay indicator. [0005: manifest includes advertisements and associated metadata]
Regarding Claim 11, Ma discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Ma discloses wherein a non-programming content is retrieved from an ad decisioning server by a media player in a consumer device, and wherein the non-programming content is retrieved based on the non-programming content indicator or the overlay indicator encountered by the media player in the disparate live media output stream manifest. [0008-12: advertisements are issued and retrieved from an advertisement decision server by a client; 0069-74: manifest is updated and provided to clients for retrieval]
Regarding Claim 15, Ma discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Ma discloses wherein the plurality of disparate live media output streams is created for different geographical locations. [0010: targeting may be based on client location and other demographic information]
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 recites a method that performs the functions of the system of Claim 1. As such, Claim 16 is analyzed and rejected similarly as Claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 18, Ma discloses all of the limitations of claim 16, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 18 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 4 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 16 recites a CRM that stores instructions that perform the functions of the system of Claim 1. As such, Claim 19 is analyzed and rejected similarly as Claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Cole et al. (US 2018/0131986 A1) (as provided by the IDS submitted on 20 October 2025, hereinafter Cole).
Regarding Claim 4, Ma discloses all of the limitations of claim 3, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Ma discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to convert the broadcast content segment encoded in the first encoding format to a second encoding format. [Fig. 2; 0033: live feed content is transcoded in different output container formats such as DASH, MPEG-TS, etc.]
Ma fails to explicitly disclose where the converting is in accordance with a broadcasting protocol
Cole, in analogous art, teaches converting content to a second encoded format in accordance with a broadcasting protocol. [0044, 0051-52: system generates a new manifest based on the original scheduled manifest including content, encoding, and distribution information for the specific programs, versions, distribution partners, and viewing platforms to receive the content (i.e., manifest will be based in accordance to the requirements/protocols dictated by distribution)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Ma with the teachings of Cole to specify transcoding segments in accordance with a broadcasting protocol as it is readily understood that manifests may be customized in accordance to the distribution information associated with particular distribution partners or viewing platforms. [Cole – 0044]
Regarding Claim 5, Ma and Cole disclose all of the limitations of claim 4, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Ma and Cole disclose wherein at least one of the pre-encoded media asset, the live input stream, or the broadcast content segment include a broadcast profile, wherein the broadcast content segment is converted to the second encoding format based on the broadcast profile. [Ma – Fig. 2; 0033: live feed content is transcoded in different output container formats such as DASH, MPEG-TS, etc.; Cole – 0044, 0051-52: system generates a new manifest based on the original scheduled manifest including content, encoding, and distribution information for the specific programs, versions, distribution partners, and viewing platforms to receive the content (i.e., a profile of some sort)]
Regarding Claim 6, Ma and Cole disclose all of the limitations of claim 4, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Cole discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: parse through the disparate live media output stream manifest that includes a graphical treatment indicator to identify a portion in the broadcast content segment where graphical treatment content is to be rendered, wherein the graphical treatment content corresponds to a promotional logo, an advertiser graphic, or an animation; and modify the broadcast content segment to include the graphical treatment content prior to conversion of the broadcast content segment into the second encoding format. [Cole – 0036: packaged content includes metadata, advertisements, and other files; 0088-89, 0099: system may include automated branding tools and allows insertion of branding graphics;]
Regarding Claim 7, Ma and Cole disclose all of the limitations of claim 4, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Cole discloses wherein the second encoding format includes a format that is outputted from an analog interface, a modified resolution of the broadcast content segment, a cropped version of the broadcast content segment, or associated with a location of an entity that distributes broadcast content. [Cole – 0038: encoded program versions may include HD and SD versions; 0044, 0051-52: system generates a new manifest based on the original scheduled manifest including content, encoding, and distribution information for the specific programs, versions, distribution partners, and viewing platforms to receive the content, where images may comprise different formats, or aspect ratios that may be optimized for the display device used]
Claim(s) 8-9, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Riedel et al. (US 2017/0289597 A1) (as provided by the IDS submitted on 20 October 2025, hereinafter Riedel).
Regarding Claim 8, Ma discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Ma discloses use of content viewing demographics [0010, 0016, 0040: user demographic information may be used in targeted advertisement decision making]
Ma fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate the disparate live media output stream manifest based on a playout schedule and content viewing demographics, wherein the playout schedule includes a schedule for at least one of a non-programming content or a programming content, and wherein the non-programming content and the programming content included in the playout schedule are selected based on rules governing ad separation, ad exclusivity, ad positioning, data pertaining to regional media assets, or revenue associated with the regional media assets.
Riedel, in analogous art, teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate the disparate live media output stream manifest based on a playout schedule and content viewing demographics, wherein the playout schedule includes a schedule for at least one of a non-programming content or a programming content. [0015, 0029, 0037, 0049: wherein such processes may be performed for non-linear on-demand style services or for live events; 0030: personalization server may initially identify media player or user of the media player; 0035: any mechanism may be utilized to identify a user; 0030-35, 0050: personalization server may identify media player or user utilizing the media player, and utilize that identification to personalize the programming schedule of the MVPD (such as the manifest of Ma), where such personalization may be based upon prior viewing history or demographic information of the identified user, or geographic location of the identified user, where such personalization may cause replacement of programming content or advertisement content to be replaced with respective alternate content]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Cole with the teachings of Riedel to specify basing a live media output stream manifest based on content viewing demographics in order to provide personalization features that may provide content that is likely to be desirable to an identified consumer of media. [Riedel – 0030-35, 0050]
Ma and Riedel fail to explicitly disclose and wherein the non-programming content and the programming content included in the playout schedule are selected based on rules governing ad separation, ad exclusivity, ad positioning, data pertaining to regional media assets, or revenue associated with the regional media assets.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that content providers may apply various rules that govern placement of ads within broadcast schedules in order to meet any contractual agreements or obligations made with various advertising entities.
Regarding Claim 9, Ma and Cole disclose all of the limitations of claim 8, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Ma and Riedel disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to replace the non-programming content and the programming content included in a broadcast schedule with an alternate non-programming content and an alternate programming content , wherein the alternate non-programming content and the alternate programming content are selected based on the content viewing demographics in real-time or near-real-time, and wherein the content viewing demographics is based on data received from a media player. [Ma – 0004-5: real-time targeted advertisement replacement; 0010, 0016, 0040: user demographic information may be used in targeted advertisement decision making; Riedel – 0015, 0029, 0037, 0049: wherein such processes may be performed for non-linear on-demand style services or for live events; 0030: personalization server may initially identify media player or user of the media player; 0035: any mechanism may be utilized to identify a user; 0030-35, 0050: personalization server may identify media player or user utilizing the media player, and utilize that identification to personalize the programming schedule of the MVPD, where such personalization may be based upon prior viewing history or demographic information of the identified user, or geographic location of the identified user, where such personalization may cause replacement of programming content or advertisement content to be replaced with respective alternate content]
Regarding Claim 12, Ma discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Ma discloses use of content viewing demographics [Fig. 5; 0010, 0016, 0040: user demographic information may be used in targeted advertisement decision making; 0005, 0031: methods for dynamically inserting metadata into segments and manifest files being generated in real-time]
Ma fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: monitor a real-time or near real-time content viewing demographics based on data received from a media player; and schedule the pre-encoded media asset based on real-time or near-real-time content viewing demographics.
Riedel, in analogous art teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: monitor a real-time or near real-time content viewing demographics based on data received from a media player; and schedule the pre-encoded media asset based on real-time or near-real-time content viewing demographics. [Riedel – 0015, 0029, 0037, 0049: wherein such processes may be performed for non-linear on-demand style services or for live events; 0030: personalization server may initially identify media player or user of the media player; 0035: any mechanism may be utilized to identify a user; 0050: wherein user demographic information may be determined and utilized for personalization of media]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Cole with the teachings of Riedel to specify basing a live media output stream manifest based on real-time content viewing demographics in order to provide personalization features that may provide content that is likely to be desirable to an identified consumer of media. [Riedel – 0030-35, 0050]
Regarding Claim 14, Ma discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Ma fails to explicitly disclose wherein the disparate live media output stream manifest includes a content replacement indicator, and wherein the content replacement indicator causes a replacement of the pre-encoded media asset with an alternate pre-encoded media asset or a replacement of the live input stream with an alternate live input stream.
Riedel, in analogous art, teaches wherein the disparate live media output stream manifest includes a content replacement indicator, and wherein the content replacement indicator causes a replacement of the pre-encoded media asset with an alternate pre-encoded media asset or a replacement of the live input stream with an alternate live input stream. [0002, 0019: inserted cues (such as those of Ma) may signal that a programming segment or advertisement may be replaced with local or other content]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Cole with the teachings of Riedel to include a content replacement indicator so as to allow a distributor to replace particular programming or advertisement segments with local ads and content in order to provide personalization features that may provide content that is likely to be desirable to an identified consumer of media. [Riedel – 0019, 0030-35, 0050]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2767. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/WILLIAM J KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights