DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
SUMMARY
2. The patent application amendment submitted on July 13, 2026, has been received and recorded. In response to Non-Final Office Action mailed on April 13, 2026, applicant amended claims 1-2, 7-9, 11-17, and 20 of which claims 1, 8, and 16 are independent claims. Claims 3-6, and 18-19 are maintained. Applicant cancelled dependent claim 10. No claim has been added as new claim after the Non-Final Office Action. Therefore, claims 1-9, and 11-20 are pending for consideration and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments in “REMARKS” filed on July 13, 2026, regarding independent claims 1 and 16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments: That is, KIM fails to describe a graphical indicator(for changing a size of the display region from the first size to a second size larger than the first size) that is displayed together with the execution screen on a condition that a displayable second portion of the visual object exists while the first portion of the visual object is displayed in the execution screen is identified. Rather, as described in paragraph [0153] of KIM, KIM merely describes that option menu 374 (which the Office relies on as corresponding to the claimed graphical indicator) is displayed "when a notification 362 is received on the first display 311 of the mobile terminal 300." In other words, the condition in KIM that triggers the option menu 374 (graphical indicator) to be displayed is different than that set forth in claim 1 (i.e., "based on identifying that a displayable second portion of the visual object exists while the first portion of the visual object is displayed in the execution screen"). Thus, KIM does not describe the features at issue, namely the features "based on identifying that a displayable second portion of the visual object exists while the first portion of the visual object is displayed in the execution screen, display a graphical indicator for changing a size of the display region from the first size to a second size larger than the first size, together with the execution screen," as recited in claim 1.
Examiner’s Answer: Examiner does not agree with the applicant’s arguments. The examiner would like to mention that claim language has been examined and analyzed according to its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification without reading the specification into the claim language. The claim has been mapped in a way it has been presented. In a broadest reasonable interpretation, flexible display is displaying one application and during this display, alarm or sign or indicator of a second application is identified to expand to display the second application in the expanded display portion. KIM discloses both the limitations in his/her disclosure. In addition to fig.11, KIM shows these limitations in figs.10, 13 and 15-16 and corresponding texts.
PNG
media_image1.png
309
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig.13
As seen from the figure above, mobile terminal 300 displaying internet page application 311, Internet page A to Internet page C. A call operation 363, from Friend A, is identified while displaying screen 311. A first option menu 376 is shown in the display and the user enters inputs to expand the display screen to show the call operation in the expanded display area. The menu 376 option is shown with arrow to expand. The display screen expanded upon user interaction in the first display area. So clearly, KIM discloses the added limitations in claims 1 and 16.
Because of the above-mentioned reason, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(1) by KIM et al.(WO 2021/045276 A1; US equivalent US 2022/0329687 A1).
Applicant's arguments in "Remarks" regarding independent claims 8 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection as necessitated by applicant's amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-7, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KIM et al.(WO 2021/045276 A1; US equivalent US 2022/0329687 A1)(herein after KIM).
Regarding claim 1, KIM teaches an electronic device(mobile terminal 100, fig.1, Para-51) comprising:
a housing including a first housing part(second frame 102 or third frame 103, fig.4) and a second housing part(third frame 103 or second frame 102, fig.4) movably engaged with each other to provide a retracted state of the housing(fig.4(a)) and an extended state of the housing(fig.4(b));
a flexible display(display unit 151, fig.1) coupled to the first housing part(102/103) and the second housing part(103/102) such that a size of a display region of the flexible display that is visible from a front side of the housing changes as a state of the housing is changed between the retracted state and the extended state(figs.4(a)-(b));
at least one processor(controller 180, fig.1) comprising processing circuitry(Para-98); and
memory(memory 170, fig.1), comprising one or more storage media, storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively(Para-72), cause the electronic device to:
display an execution screen(figs.3,8&11) including a first portion of a visual object(figs.10-11, 13, 15-16), via the display region having a first size(figs.3&8; 311, fig.11, 13, 15-16), and
based on identifying that a displayable second portion of the visual object(time, phone number, phone call, figs.11, 13, 13, 15-16) exists while the first portion of the visual object is displayed in the execution screen(figs.11, 13, 13, 15-16), display a graphical indicator (option menu 374, fig.11(a), Para-153) for changing a size of the display region from the first size(311) to a second size(311a and 311b, fig.11(b)) larger than the first size, together with the execution screen(figs.11(a)), 13, 15-16).
Regarding claim 2, KIM teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the second portion of the visual object is a portion of the visual object displayable when a scroll input(376, fig.13)(icon 376 shows an arrow in expanded direction, therefore, it is inherent that a user flick or swipe or scroll in the arrow direction) is received while the first portion of the visual object(311a) is displayed, and
wherein the graphical indicator(374) is displayed in proximity to the visual object included in the execution screen(figs.8&11(a)).
Regarding claim 3, KIM teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the graphical indicator(374, 376) indicates the first size relative to a maximum size of the display region corresponding to the extended state of the housing (figs.8&11&13).
Regarding claim 4, KIM teaches the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
identify a drag input(Para-162) with respect to the graphical indicator(374, 376); and
based on the drag input, enlarge a size of the graphical indicator displayed together with the execution screen(Para-162).
Regarding claim 5, KIM teaches the electronic device of claim 4, further comprising:
an actuator(driving unit 200, figs.2&6, Para-133; roller 1028, fig.5, Para-107),
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor(180, fig.1) individually or collectively, cause the electronic device(100) to:
control the actuator(200/1028) to change a size of the display region from the first size to the second size identified based on a length of the drag input(Para-133, 134).
Regarding claim 6, KIM teaches the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:
an actuator(driving unit 200, figs.2&6, Para-133; roller 1028, fig.5, Para-107),
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
based on an input received with respect to the graphical indicator(371, fig.5; 374, fig.11), control the actuator(1028) to move the second housing part with respect to the first housing part for changing a size of the display region from the first size to the second size(figs.8&11).
Regarding claim 7, KIM teaches the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the second portion of the visual object(phone call, Friend A, 311b) is displayed via the display region(fig.13) having the second size(as seen from three figures, size of the left display portion with phone application is not the same size as in the right side).
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 since both claims 1 and 16 recite identical claim limitations but in different formats.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 2 since both claims 2 and 17 recite identical claim limitations but in different formats.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 3 since both claims 3 and 18 recite identical claim limitations but in different formats.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 6 since both claims 6 and 19 recite identical claim limitations but in different formats.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 7 since both claims 7 and 20 recite identical claim limitations but in different formats.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103) as being unpatentable over CHUNG et al.(US 2021/0034210 A1)(herein after CHUNG) in view of KIM et al.(US 2023/0017891 A1) (herein after KIM).
Regarding claim 8, CHUNG teaches an electronic device (electronic device 100, fig.1, Para-26) comprising:
a housing including a first housing part and a second housing part movably engaged with each other to provide a retracted state of the housing and an extended state of the housing (fig.1, Para 28-32);
a flexible display(display 120, fig.1) coupled to the first housing part(fig.1) and the second housing part(fig.1) such that a size of a display region of the flexible display that is visible from a front side of the housing changes as a state of the housing is changed between the retracted state and the extended state(fig.1, Para 31-33);
at least one processor(processor 130, fig.2, Para-41) comprising processing circuitry(Para-47); and
memory(memory 930, fig.9, Para-116) comprising one or more storage media storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively(Para-117, 119-121), cause the electronic device to:
identify an input(501) received with respect to a software application(first step 510, fig.5, Para-75:phone application),
based on the input, identify a state of the housing with respect to displaying an execution screen of the software application via the flexible display(second step 520, fig.5, Para-76, 78), and
based on the state of the housing being identified as different from the reference state(510, fig.5)(examiner interpreted 510 as reference state, default state), display a graphical indicator(screen 502, favorite 503, fig.5) for changing a state of the housing(520/530) to the reference state(510).
Nevertheless, CHUNG is not found to teach expressly the electronic device, wherein a reference state of the housing based on historical information stored with respect to the software application.
However, KIM teaches a mobile terminal, wherein a reference state of the housing based on historical information stored with respect to the software application(Para-186: the controller 180 may automatically determine a display layout based on application properties of at least one of a first application corresponding to the first icon and a second application corresponding to the second icon. The application properties may relate to an execution screen graphic configuration. Alternatively, the application properties may include a past history of a layout (e.g., portrait/landscape layout) mainly used by a user when the corresponding application is executed).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified CHUNG with the teaching of KIM to include the feature in order to provide a mobile terminal capable of using past history of application layout displayed in the flexible display device to determine the size of the second display area to display presently.
10. Claims 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHUNG et al.(US 2021/0034210 A1) in view of KIM et al.(US 2023/0017891 A1) and further in view of KIM et al.(US 2022/0329687 A1)(herein after KIM’687).
Regarding claim 9, CHUNG as modified by KIM is not found to teach expressly the electronic device of claim 8, further comprising: an actuator, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: based on at least one input received with respect to the graphical indicator, control the actuator to change a state of the housing to the reference state, wherein a size of the display region is changed from a first size to a second size in accordance with a state of the housing being changed to the reference state, and display the execution screen of the software application in the display region having the second size.
However, KIM’687 teaches a mobile terminal(mobile terminal 100, fig.1), further comprising:
an actuator(driving unit 200, figs.2&6, Para-133, roller 1028, fig.5, Para-107),
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
based on at least one input received with respect to the graphical indicator(occurrent of event S610, fig.6, Para-134; also figs.8&11) control the actuator to change a state of the housing to the reference state(S630, fig.6, Para-134),
wherein a size of the display region is changed from a first size(figs.8&11) to a second size(figs.8&11) in accordance with the state of the housing being changed to the reference state (figs.8&11), and
display the execution screen of the software application in the display region having the second size(S630, fig.6, Para-134; also figs.8&11 and related texts).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified CHUNG further with the teaching of KIM’687 to include the feature in order to provide a mobile terminal that, when an event occurs, enables a user to select whether to expand a display upon execution of the event, thereby providing convenience to the user.
Regarding claim 11, CHUNG as modified by KIM and KIM’687 teaches the electronic device of claim 8, wherein the reference state(Para-186, 194, KIM; fig.8, KIM’687) is identified as a state of the housing when the execution screen of the software application was last displayed(Para-186, 194, KIM; fig.8, KIM’687).
Regarding claim 12, CHUNG as modified by KIM and KIM’687 teaches the electronic device of claim 8, wherein the reference state is identified as a state of the housing most frequently used for displaying the execution screen of the software application(default state, home screen, of both CHUNG and KIM’687; Para-186, 194, KIM).
Regarding claim 13, CHUNG as modified by KIM and KIM’687 teaches the electronic device of claim 8, wherein the reference state is identified based at least in part on an arrangement of content in a user interface(default state, home screen of both CHUNG and KIM’687; Para-186, 194, KIM).
Regarding claim 14, CHUNG as modified by KIM and KIM’687 teaches the electronic device of claim 8, wherein the reference state is identified between the retracted state and the extended state(fig.9, KIM’687).
11. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHUNG et al.(US 2021/0034210 A1) in view of KIM et al.(US 2023/0017891 A1) and further in view of Cho et al.(US 2014/0375702 A1)(herein after Cho).
Regarding claim 15, CHUNG as modified by KIM is not found to teach expressly the electronic device of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: based on the state of the housing being identified as corresponding to the reference state, forgo displaying the graphical indicator.
However, Cho teaches a portable device, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
based on the state of the housing being identified as corresponding to the reference state, forgo displaying the graphical indicator(arrow 42, fig.4, Para 70-73).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified CHUNG further with the teaching of Cho to include the feature in order to provide a portable device that is designed such that retraction of the flexible display unit indicates that a user no longer wishes to use the flexible display unit, so that conversion to the dimming mode that provides shorter dimming time according to the retraction serves to more effectively reduce power consumption of the device.
Double Patenting
12. 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.
13. Claims 1, 5-7, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,393,225 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because except for minor wording and insignificant changes in terminology, each and every limitation of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,393,225 B2 reads on the corresponding limitation of claims 1, 5-7, and 16 of the current application 19/302,726. Both the US published Patent and current application recite an electronic device having flexible, retractable and expandable, display panel.
Comparison of claims 1, 5-7, and 16 of the current application and claims 1-20 of the US Patent No. US 12,393,225 B2 is given below:
Comparison of claims of the current application and US published Patent No. US 12,393,225 B2 is given bellow: -
19/302,726
US 12,393,225 B2
Claim 1: An electronic device comprising:
a housing including a first housing part and a second housing part movably engaged with each other to provide a retracted state of the housing and an extended state of the housing;
a flexible display coupled to the first housing part and the second housing part such that a size of a display region of the flexible display that is visible from a front side of the housing changes as a state of the housing is changed between the retracted state and the extended state;
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry; and
memory, comprising one or more storage media, storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
display an execution screen via the display region having a first size, and
based at least in part on a portion of a visual object included in the execution screen being identified as not displayed via the display region having the first size, display a graphical indicator for changing a size of the display region from the first size to a second size larger than the first size, together with the execution screen.
Claim 5: The electronic device of claim 4, further comprising:
an actuator,
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: control the actuator to change a size of the display region from the first size to the second size identified based on a length of the drag input. And/or
Claim 6: The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:
an actuator,
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
based on an input received with respect to the graphical indicator, control the actuator to move the second housing part with respect to the first housing part for changing a size of the display region from the first size to the second size.
Claim 1: An electronic device comprising:
a housing including a first housing part and a second housing part configured to movably engage with the first housing part between a retracted position and an extended position;
a flexible display coupled to the first housing part and the second housing part such that a size of a display region of the flexible display that is visible from a front side of the housing changes as the housing is moved between the retracted position and the extended position;
an actuator;
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry; and
memory comprising one or more storage media storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
receive a user input for selecting a software application,
based on the user input, identify a reference size of a user interface of the software application in accordance with an execution history of the software application,
compare a size of the user interface to be displayed in the display region having a first size, with the reference size,
based on the size of the user interface being different from the reference size, display a visual object for guiding to change the size of the display region in which the user interface is to be displayed,
based on at least one user input received with respect to the visual object, control the actuator to change the size of the display region from the first size to a second size corresponding to the reference size, and display the user interface of the software application in the display region having the second size.
Claim 7 corresponds to part of claim 3 of US 12,393,225 B2;
Claim 16 recites similar and identical limitations but in different formats. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as rejected claim 1.
14. Claims 8-9, and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,393,225 B2 in view of KIM et al.(US 2023/0017891 A1) (herein after KIM).
Claim 8 corresponds to a part of claim 1 of US 12,393,225 B2 except the limitations, “wherein a reference state of the housing based on historical information stored with respect to the software application”.
However, KIM teaches a mobile terminal, wherein a reference state of the housing based on historical information stored with respect to the software application(Para-186: the controller 180 may automatically determine a display layout based on application properties of at least one of a first application corresponding to the first icon and a second application corresponding to the second icon. The application properties may relate to an execution screen graphic configuration. Alternatively, the application properties may include a past history of a layout (e.g., portrait/landscape layout) mainly used by a user when the corresponding application is executed).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the claims of U.S. Patent No. US 12,393,225 B2 with the teaching of KIM to include the feature in order to provide a mobile terminal capable of using past history of application layout displayed in the flexible display device to determine the size of the second display area to display presently.
Claim 9 corresponds to part of claim 1 of US 12,393,225 B2;
Claim 13 corresponds to part of claim 15 of US 12,393,225 B2.
Rest of the dependent claims 2-4, 11-12, 14-15 and 17-20 could also be rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting rejection using the art used in the rejections under 35 USC 103(obvious type).
Conclusion
15. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
Examiner Note
16. The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references, as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the references or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00AM - 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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached on (5712723017. 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.
/MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights