DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-24 are pending.
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.
Claim1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,481,699. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use similar limitations to produce the same end result of allowing the user to share the content with a first contact of the subset of contacts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,481,699 to arrive at the limitations of claims 1-24 of the instant application because one would realize that the remaining elements would perform the same functions as before.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) a certain method of organizing human activity (managing personal relationships and interactions: choosing which friends to share something with) and mental processes (judging which contacts a user is close to or interacts with). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because generically recited computer elements such as a memory, a processing device, a machine-readable storage medium, a user device, a user interface, a share button, and a display list. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because presenting, identifying, and sharing are well understood, routine, conventional computer functions.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: A method for personalized sharing of content items, the method comprising: presenting, by a user device of a user, a user interface (UI) including content and a UI element allowing the user to share the content with other users; upon a selection of the UI element by the user in the UI, identifying a subset of contacts of the user on the content sharing platform, wherein contacts in the subset of contacts are selected from a plurality of contacts of the user based on at least one of (i) an affinity of the user with each contact of the subset of contacts, or (ii) interactions of the user with content of each contact of the subset of contacts; presenting, to the user, the subset of contacts of the user including some but not all of the plurality of contacts of the user; and allowing the user to share the content with a first contact of the subset of contacts.
The limitation of presenting, by a user device of a user, a user interface (UI) including content and a UI element allowing the user to share the content with other users as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity and performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, presenting encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually gather data and visually provide the data to another user.
The limitation of upon a selection of the UI element by the user in the UI, identifying a subset of contacts of the user on the content sharing platform, wherein contacts in the subset of contacts are selected from a plurality of contacts of the user based on at least one of (i) an affinity of the user with each contact of the subset of contacts, or (ii) interactions of the user with content of each contact of the subset of contacts as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity and performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, identifying encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to pick which friends to tell about something based on how close you are to them, or how much you engage with their posts; this a social activity people carry out mentally.
The limitation of presenting, to the user, the subset of contacts of the user including some but not all of the plurality of contacts of the user as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activities and performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, presenting encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to display the result of a judgment.
The limitation of allowing the user to share the content with a first contact of the subset of contacts as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity and performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, sharing encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to share content with a person.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers method of organizing human activity and performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements which is to perform presenting, identifying, and sharing steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform presenting, identifying, and sharing steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not directed to any additional/substantive claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claim above – such as: wherein the subset of contacts is selected from the plurality of contacts of the user using affinity scores corresponding to the plurality of contacts of the user; wherein each affinity score is defined by an affinity between the user and a respective contact of the plurality of contacts; wherein the affinity score is indicative of a likelihood of an interaction by the respective contact with the content; wherein the affinity score is calculated based on consumption of one or more content items associated with the respective contact by the user; wherein the affinity score is calculated based on consumption of one or more content items associated with the user by the respective contact; wherein the affinity score is calculated based on interactions with one or more content items associated with the respective contact by the user; wherein the affinity score is calculated based on interactions with one or more content items associated with the user by the respective contact; wherein the affinity score is calculated based on commenting on one or more content items associated with the respective contact by the user; wherein the affinity score is calculated based on commenting on one or more content items associated with the user by the respective contact; wherein the affinity score is calculated based on liking one or more content items associated with the respective contact by the user; wherein the affinity score is calculated based on liking one or more content items associated with the user by the respective contact; wherein the affinity score is calculated based on sharing one or more content items associated with the respective contact by the user; wherein the affinity score is calculated based on sharing one or more content items associated with the user by the respective contact; wherein the affinity score is calculated based on subscription of the user to one or more content items associated with the respective contact; wherein the affinity score is calculated based on subscription of the respective contact to one or more content items associated with the user; wherein the affinity score is calculated based on whether the respective contact is an active or inactive user of a content platform; wherein each contact of the subset of contacts is presented using at least one of an image of a respective contact or a name of the respective contact; wherein each contact of the subset of contacts is represented by a selectable UI element; wherein allowing the user to share the content with the first contact of the subset of contacts comprises: receiving a selection, by the user, of a UI element representing the first contact; visually indicating the selection of the UI element representing the first contact; and upon receiving a selection, by the user, of a send button, initiating sharing of the content with the first contact; wherein allowing the user to share the content with the first contact of the subset of contacts comprises: presenting a comments field to allow the user to enter a comment prior to sharing the content with the first contact; wherein allowing the user to share the content with the first contact of the subset of contacts comprises: displaying a cancel button while presenting the subset of contacts of the user; receiving a selection, by the user, of the cancel button; and refraining from sharing the content with the first contact.
These steps are abstract ideas similar to those noted in independent Claim 1 because they further the limitations of Claim 1 which are directed towards an abstract idea.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements which is to perform scoring and ranking contacts, and presenting data steps. These limitations amount to no more that data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 23 is the apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 1 above, therefore is rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
Claim 24 is the storage media claim corresponding to method claim 1 above, therefore is rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
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) 1-3, 7, 17-21, & 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomba et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0172334 A1) in view of BRYANT et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0372902 A1).
In respect to Claim 1, Gomba teaches:
a method for personalized sharing of content items, (Gomba teaches [Abstract, 0046-0050] suggesting recipients for a content item the sending user wants to share.)
the method comprising: presenting, by a user device of a user, a user interface (UI) including content and a UI element allowing the user to share the content with other users; (Gomba teaches [FIG. 6A, 0057] content in the sharing UI.)
upon a selection of the UI element by the user in the UI, identifying a subset of contacts of the user on the content sharing platform, wherein contacts in the subset of contacts are selected from a plurality of contacts of the user based on at least one of (i) an affinity of the user with each contact of the subset of contacts, or (ii) interactions of the user with content of each contact of the subset of contacts; (Gomba teaches [FIG. 6A, 0046-0049] retrieving, ranking, and identifying a set of receiving users from the user’s connections.)
presenting, to the user, the subset of contacts of the user including some but not all of the plurality of contacts of the user; (Gomba teaches [0049, 0057] users with at least a threshold position in the ranking, or the highest-ranked users for presenting.)
and allowing the user to share the content with a first contact of the subset of contacts (Gomba teaches [0058, FIG. 3, steps 305-315] selected users marked with a check mark and presented with the content item.)
BRYANT teaches:
the method comprising: presenting, by a user device of a user, a user interface (UI) including content and a UI element allowing the user to share the content with other users; (Bryant teaches [0052, FIG. 3] content displayed with non-specific share command icons.)
and allowing the user to share the content with a first contact of the subset of contacts (BRYANT teaches [006-0061] selecting a recommended recipient for sharing content.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of BRYANT into the system of Gomba. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide an effective system for electronic sharing of content items by giving the user a one-tap route to sharing with likely recipients. (BRYANT [0002])
As per Claim 2, Gomba teaches:
wherein the subset of contacts is selected from the plurality of contacts of the user using affinity scores corresponding to the plurality of contacts of the user (Gomba [0030, 0032, 0048])
As per Claim 3, Gomba teaches:
wherein each affinity score is defined by an affinity between the user and a respective contact of the plurality of contacts (Gomba teaches [0032, 0048] measuring of affinity between the sending user and an additional user.)
As per Claim 7, Gomba teaches:
wherein the affinity score is calculated based on interactions with one or more content items associated with the respective contact by the user (Gomba [0026, 0047])
As per Claim 17, Gomba teaches:
wherein the affinity score is calculated based on whether the respective contact is an active or inactive user of a content platform (Gomba teaches [0061] that the online status is overlaid on the user identifier.)
As per Claim 18, Gomba teaches:
wherein each contact of the subset of contacts is presented using at least one of an image of a respective contact or a name of the respective contact (Gomba teaches [0058] a user identifier presented as a text description as an image.)
As per Claim 19, Gomba teaches:
wherein each contact of the subset of contacts is represented by a selectable UI element (Gomba teaches [0058] selected identifiers marked with a check mark.)
As per Claim 20, Gomba teaches:
receiving a selection, by the user, of a UI element representing the first contact; visually indicating the selection of the UI element representing the first contact; (Gomba teaches [0058, FIG. 3] a check mark overlay with a visual indicator.)
and upon receiving a selection, by the user, of a send button, initiating sharing of the content with the first contact (Gomba [0052-0053])
As per Claim 21, Gomba teaches:
wherein allowing the user to share the content with the first contact of the subset of contacts comprises: presenting a comments field to allow the user to enter a comment prior to sharing the content with the first contact (Gomba teaches [FIG. 6A, 0057] captions added to the content item.)
Claim 23 is the apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 1 above, therefore is rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
Claim 24 is the media claim corresponding to method claim 1 above, therefore is rejected for the same reasons noted previously.
Claim(s) 4, 6, & 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomba & BRYANT, and further in view of Duddu et al. (US Patent No. 8,762,462 B1).
As per Claim 4, Gomba teaches:
wherein the affinity score is indicative of a likelihood of an interaction by the respective contact with the content (Gomba teaches [Abstract, 0048] frequency of interaction impacting the affinity score.)
Duddu further teaches:
wherein the affinity score is indicative of a likelihood of an interaction by the respective contact with the content (Duddu teaches [column 2, lines 36-60] an interest profile of the types of content a contact favorable acts on.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Duddu into the systems of Gomba & BRYANT. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system which allows users to send, create, and share content with other user. (Duddu [column 1, lines 10-12])_
As per Claim 6, Gomba teaches:
wherein the affinity score is calculated based on consumption of one or more content items associated with the user by the respective contact (Gomba teaches [Abstract, 0048] frequency of interaction impacting the affinity score.)
Duddu further teaches:
wherein the affinity score is calculated based on consumption of one or more content items associated with the user by the respective contact (Duddu teaches [column 3, lines 1-15] multiple views of a piece of content as an endorsement action.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Duddu into the systems of Gomba & BRYANT. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system which allows users to send, create, and share content with other user. (Duddu [column 1, lines 10-12])
As per Claim 15, Gomba teaches:
wherein the affinity score is calculated based on subscription of the user to one or more content items associated with the respective contact (Gomba [0030])
Duddu further teaches:
wherein the affinity score is calculated based on subscription of the user to one or more content items associated with the respective contact (Duddu teaches [column 3, lines 1-15] affinity based on subscribing to a content item.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Duddu into the systems of Gomba & BRYANT. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system which allows users to send, create, and share content with other user. (Duddu [column 1, lines 10-12])
As per Claim 16, Gomba teaches:
wherein the affinity score is calculated based on subscription of the respective contact to one or more content items associated with the user (Gomba [0030])
Duddu further teaches:
wherein the affinity score is calculated based on subscription of the respective contact to one or more content items associated with the user (Duddu teaches [column 3, lines 1-15] affinity based on subscribing to a content item.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Duddu into the systems of Gomba & BRYANT. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system which allows users to send, create, and share content with other user. (Duddu [column 1, lines 10-12])
Claim(s) 5 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomba & BRYANT, and further in view of Juan et al. (US Pub. No. 2012/0166532 A1).
As per Claim 5, Gomba teaches:
wherein the affinity score is calculated based on consumption of one or more content items associated with the respective contact by the user (Gomba [0030])
Juan further teaches:
wherein the affinity score is calculated based on consumption of one or more content items associated with the respective contact by the user (Juan teaches [0007] viewing photos and content posted by other connections.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Juan into the systems of Gomba & BRYANT. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide contextually relevant affinities for users of a social networking system by predicting different types of actions that users of the social networking system may perform. (Juan [0001])
As per Claim 9, Gomba teaches:
wherein the affinity score is calculated based on commenting on one or more content items associated with the respective contact by the user (Gomba [0026, 0030])
Juan further teaches:
wherein the affinity score is calculated based on commenting on one or more content items associated with the respective contact by the user (Juan teaches [0007] commenting on content.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Juan into the systems of Gomba & BRYANT. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide contextually relevant affinities for users of a social networking system by predicting different types of actions that users of the social networking system may perform. (Juan [0001])
Claim(s) 8 & 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomba & BRYANT, and further in view of Pelsmaeker et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0019568 A1).
As per Claim 8, Gomba teaches:
wherein the affinity score is calculated based on interactions with one or more content items associated with the user by the respective contact (Gomba [0030])
Pelsmaeker further teaches:
wherein the affinity score is calculated based on interactions with one or more content items associated with the user by the respective contact (Pelsmaeker teaches [0078-0079, 0084-0085, 0089-0092] affinity from likes, comments, retweets and favorites by the friend or follower on the originator’s posts.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pelsmaeker into the systems of Gomba & BRYANT. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system that considers personal relationships and interests in determining actual influencers. (Pelsmaeker [0002])
As per Claim 10, Pelsmaeker teaches:
wherein the affinity score is calculated based on commenting on one or more content items associated with the user by the respective contact (Pelsmaeker teaches [0080] comments by a friend on posts from the originator’s timeline.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pelsmaeker into the systems of Gomba & BRYANT. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system that considers personal relationships and interests in determining actual influencers. (Pelsmaeker [0002])
As per Claim 11, Pelsmaeker teaches:
wherein the affinity score is calculated based on liking one or more content items associated with the respective contact by the user (Pelsmaeker teaches [0061] tweets of the follower favored by the originator.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pelsmaeker into the systems of Gomba & BRYANT. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system that considers personal relationships and interests in determining actual influencers. (Pelsmaeker [0002])
As per Claim 12, Pelsmaeker teaches:
wherein the affinity score is calculated based on liking one or more content items associated with the user by the respective contact (Pelsmaeker teaches [0078-0079, 0047, 0062] likes by a friend on the originator’s posts; favorites)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pelsmaeker into the systems of Gomba & BRYANT. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system that considers personal relationships and interests in determining actual influencers.
As per Claim 13, Pelsmaeker teaches:
wherein the affinity score is calculated based on sharing one or more content items associated with the respective contact by the user (Pelsmaeker teaches [0061] tweets of the follower retweeted by the originator.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pelsmaeker into the systems of Gomba & BRYANT. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system that considers personal relationships and interests in determining actual influencers.
As per Claim 14, Pelsmaeker teaches:
wherein the affinity score is calculated based on sharing one or more content items associated with the user by the respective contact (Pelsmaeker teaches [0061] tweets of the follower retweeted by the originator.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pelsmaeker into the systems of Gomba & BRYANT. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system that considers personal relationships and interests in determining actual influencers.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomba & BRYANT, and further in view of Chen et al. (US Pub. No. 2012/0110464 A1).
Chen teaches:
wherein allowing the user to share the content with the first contact of the subset of contacts comprises: displaying a cancel button while presenting the subset of contacts of the user; receiving a selection, by the user, of the cancel button; and refraining from sharing the content with the first contact (Chen teaches [0104] confirmation dialogue with post button and cancel button.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen into the systems of Gomba & BRYANT. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide methods for sharing digital content using a computer implemented social networking service. (Chen [0002])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
/JOSHUA BULLOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153 September 25, 2026
